Served as an NCO in the 3 shop for 2/75 Rangers for 4 years. I could type! Most Rangers back then couldn't. Troops who wanted to be Rangers didn't want to type; typists didn't want to be Rangers. This was even more dramatic with our Ranger cooks! We incentivized them to stay in the unit by sending them to a variety of schools (Ranger, Jumpmaster, Scuba, etc.). In large "flat" MOS's like cooks getting the extra promotion points for having attended schools made a huge difference in their promotion rate throughout their career. And having outstanding food waiting back at the barracks provided significant incentive to the troops in the field. One last aside - this was where I had my first laptop, an Osborne. It had 2 floppy drives - one for data and one for the program. It was AWESOME to prepare/modify operations orders with on the fly. I even jumped it once "just because" (rode it in to avoid damaging the unit). That was 1982 . . . Also learned how to transmit faxes over AM radio! Lot's of lost skills from that time period.
That’s so dope. Thank you for sharing. I’m a younger officer in a J6 staff. Would be so cool to show yall different systems nowadays, but then again most of it is COTS.
Another really good article. If you are interested in generalship, and how large armies are led and fight then understanding the concept of a 'staff' is vital. No large military operation can be conducted without good staff work, for example the Macarthur's very successful Inchon landing during the Korean War relied on USMC and USN staff officers that had gained their experience in WW2. It is also worth studying the way the German staff system evolved and worked, creating a stream of highly intellectual officers that encouraged innovation. Being on the General Staff was an honour, and it is also interesting how German leaders often took their key staff officers with them as the moved up the ranks creating very cohesive and high-performing teams. Understanding how a staff works is vital for understanding how an army actually functions. Great article.
I like your point about the Germans brining their officers along. I think that we don’t do that is a weakness for us. I can’t tell you how much time I have to spend learning what a senior leader is looking for and making sure the staff work I produce is appropriate. Interpersonal communication is huge.
Another point, I read a recent article on Substack about the Crimean war. The officers fighting there at the time bemoaned the creation of the telephone line, as it allowed for more micromanaging from HQ’s back in London for example. It makes me think about the reporting requirements higher echelons impose on lowers, and how this takes time and bandwidth from commanders on the ground. Not advocating for or against, just a thought.
Thanks for interesting historical note, doesn’t surprise me at all. An interesting feature of war is that no matter how technology many of the essential principles and considerations remain the same, and new tech means more micromanagement!
I have never felt so seen. And I feel a bit guilty too in retrospect. As a former grunt, I thought anyone who had hands on keyboards wasn't a real warrior that could define problems. Then... I became one. Then I saw how much teeth I pulled on a weekly basis. And now I look back at my younger grunt self and think, "god damn, I was lucky to have staff officers who legit did their job without thanks."
Also, you deserve a beer for getting away with writing, "Their physiques have softened." Shh, its only two buckles.
Gus' Law on the Staff (based on 37-years experience): The HQ above you is staffed by incompetent idiots who just don't get it, the HQ below you behaves like a recalcitrant child because they just don't get it. As an aside, HQs are bigger IMO not due to complexity, but because of the effects of legislation, accountability, and training too many OF4/5s at Staff College to think and behave like generals.
And I think that follows from the effects of legislation and accountability; by which I mean the requirement to follow multiple rules and regulations, not the need to be properly held to account for one's behaviour. When I joined in '84 you were expected to do the best you could under the circumstances, with whatever you had to hand. By the time I took my unit to Afghanistan for the second time in '09 the myriad compulsory training we were required to undertake, for compliance not effect, needed a dedicated officer just to maintain the spreadsheet. There are so many rules and regulations now that require accountability at a senior level you need more senior people to hold them. A return to 'Best Effort' would be most welcome.
You forgot some of the favorite buzz phrases of national level staffs like ‘silos of excellence’ and ‘you need to prep me so I can prep the flag officer who needs to prep a higher flag officer’ ‘let’s establish a working group to talk about this issue’
In the American Army much of the staff bloat is driven by the up or out personnel system like many of our dysfunctions.
The other problems stem from the nation’s managerial culture.
Managerialism is the evasion by diffusion of responsibility into committees.
The good news is we know this for decades and can get around it with good leadership in particular the leadership we have this moment. Can. Will we? We’re about to find out.
Nicely done. Now do inter-staff interaction. Subordinate-higher staff, and adjacent staff interaction is just a treasure trove of social sciences. Just watching -3 versus -3 rooster fights is good times, especially when it's serious (even when you are one of the birds in the pit).
When my daughter was growing up and complained about the immense complexity of some household chore or a school project, my wife would tell her to break it down into smaller parts or steps and start with one and then another step and then another. Matt Damon’s character in the The Martian says the same thing to astronaut trainees about what to do in a survival situation- start with one problem and solve that, then solve the next one, and the next one. This is what staffs do when faced with managing and operating the large fast moving forces that are now our armed services. After years (as an adjacent civilian) of seeing Frag Orders whizzing back and forth I finally attended a training exercise and got to see a complete printed out Op Order - it was huge - but I also appreciated the confirmation offered by one Major that “we have plans so that we know what we are deviating from”. But each commander has to make this work for them - Napoleon had Berthier, Grant had one unnamed officer on his staff who saw every order before it went out because Grant was confident that if that guy understood the order and its intent so would the General receiving the order. And this all happened before the 5 part order format. Staffs have to not only communicate quickly they have to communicate clearly and nowadays they have to be mobile. I was appalled at the expanse of tents and shelters that made up a brigade hq at one exercise and the probable electronic signature was frightening.
Speaking as someone without miilitary experience but with experience as 'staff' in both corporations and the federal government, I have to say this was a terrific and much needed explanation of what staff is, what it does, and why its important. One of the great 'myths' being perpetrated by tech-lords is that softward — and AI in particular — eliminates the need for staff. This is closely related to the mythology of self-organizing teams and the denigration of **all** hierarchical chains of 'command'.
Hilarious and informative, especially the descriptions of each staff section 🤣 This leaves out a bunch of speciality sections, but does illustrate the coordinating parts clearly and accurately discusses the challenges of larger staffs. That first diagram certainly shows how internal frictions can slow things down, to a crawl.
Thank you! Yes, I tried to keep it as simple as possible - headquarters can be hugely varied and, after all, work to the Commander's need. If they want a seperate department, they will get it!
Served as an NCO in the 3 shop for 2/75 Rangers for 4 years. I could type! Most Rangers back then couldn't. Troops who wanted to be Rangers didn't want to type; typists didn't want to be Rangers. This was even more dramatic with our Ranger cooks! We incentivized them to stay in the unit by sending them to a variety of schools (Ranger, Jumpmaster, Scuba, etc.). In large "flat" MOS's like cooks getting the extra promotion points for having attended schools made a huge difference in their promotion rate throughout their career. And having outstanding food waiting back at the barracks provided significant incentive to the troops in the field. One last aside - this was where I had my first laptop, an Osborne. It had 2 floppy drives - one for data and one for the program. It was AWESOME to prepare/modify operations orders with on the fly. I even jumped it once "just because" (rode it in to avoid damaging the unit). That was 1982 . . . Also learned how to transmit faxes over AM radio! Lot's of lost skills from that time period.
That’s so dope. Thank you for sharing. I’m a younger officer in a J6 staff. Would be so cool to show yall different systems nowadays, but then again most of it is COTS.
Another really good article. If you are interested in generalship, and how large armies are led and fight then understanding the concept of a 'staff' is vital. No large military operation can be conducted without good staff work, for example the Macarthur's very successful Inchon landing during the Korean War relied on USMC and USN staff officers that had gained their experience in WW2. It is also worth studying the way the German staff system evolved and worked, creating a stream of highly intellectual officers that encouraged innovation. Being on the General Staff was an honour, and it is also interesting how German leaders often took their key staff officers with them as the moved up the ranks creating very cohesive and high-performing teams. Understanding how a staff works is vital for understanding how an army actually functions. Great article.
Thank you!
I like your point about the Germans brining their officers along. I think that we don’t do that is a weakness for us. I can’t tell you how much time I have to spend learning what a senior leader is looking for and making sure the staff work I produce is appropriate. Interpersonal communication is huge.
Another point, I read a recent article on Substack about the Crimean war. The officers fighting there at the time bemoaned the creation of the telephone line, as it allowed for more micromanaging from HQ’s back in London for example. It makes me think about the reporting requirements higher echelons impose on lowers, and how this takes time and bandwidth from commanders on the ground. Not advocating for or against, just a thought.
Thanks for interesting historical note, doesn’t surprise me at all. An interesting feature of war is that no matter how technology many of the essential principles and considerations remain the same, and new tech means more micromanagement!
I have never felt so seen. And I feel a bit guilty too in retrospect. As a former grunt, I thought anyone who had hands on keyboards wasn't a real warrior that could define problems. Then... I became one. Then I saw how much teeth I pulled on a weekly basis. And now I look back at my younger grunt self and think, "god damn, I was lucky to have staff officers who legit did their job without thanks."
Also, you deserve a beer for getting away with writing, "Their physiques have softened." Shh, its only two buckles.
Haha thank you! As you can tell, it all comes from experience 😉
"The accountants. Their default answer to everything is ‘no’."
True the world over 😂. Excellent as article, thank you 👍
Gus' Law on the Staff (based on 37-years experience): The HQ above you is staffed by incompetent idiots who just don't get it, the HQ below you behaves like a recalcitrant child because they just don't get it. As an aside, HQs are bigger IMO not due to complexity, but because of the effects of legislation, accountability, and training too many OF4/5s at Staff College to think and behave like generals.
I couldn't agree more with Gus' Law!
I think I'd also partially agree your second point - perhaps also a result of having just too many mid/senior officers in general?
And I think that follows from the effects of legislation and accountability; by which I mean the requirement to follow multiple rules and regulations, not the need to be properly held to account for one's behaviour. When I joined in '84 you were expected to do the best you could under the circumstances, with whatever you had to hand. By the time I took my unit to Afghanistan for the second time in '09 the myriad compulsory training we were required to undertake, for compliance not effect, needed a dedicated officer just to maintain the spreadsheet. There are so many rules and regulations now that require accountability at a senior level you need more senior people to hold them. A return to 'Best Effort' would be most welcome.
You forgot some of the favorite buzz phrases of national level staffs like ‘silos of excellence’ and ‘you need to prep me so I can prep the flag officer who needs to prep a higher flag officer’ ‘let’s establish a working group to talk about this issue’
Aaaaah no not another working group! Please not another working group!
In the American Army much of the staff bloat is driven by the up or out personnel system like many of our dysfunctions.
The other problems stem from the nation’s managerial culture.
Managerialism is the evasion by diffusion of responsibility into committees.
The good news is we know this for decades and can get around it with good leadership in particular the leadership we have this moment. Can. Will we? We’re about to find out.
Nicely done. Now do inter-staff interaction. Subordinate-higher staff, and adjacent staff interaction is just a treasure trove of social sciences. Just watching -3 versus -3 rooster fights is good times, especially when it's serious (even when you are one of the birds in the pit).
When my daughter was growing up and complained about the immense complexity of some household chore or a school project, my wife would tell her to break it down into smaller parts or steps and start with one and then another step and then another. Matt Damon’s character in the The Martian says the same thing to astronaut trainees about what to do in a survival situation- start with one problem and solve that, then solve the next one, and the next one. This is what staffs do when faced with managing and operating the large fast moving forces that are now our armed services. After years (as an adjacent civilian) of seeing Frag Orders whizzing back and forth I finally attended a training exercise and got to see a complete printed out Op Order - it was huge - but I also appreciated the confirmation offered by one Major that “we have plans so that we know what we are deviating from”. But each commander has to make this work for them - Napoleon had Berthier, Grant had one unnamed officer on his staff who saw every order before it went out because Grant was confident that if that guy understood the order and its intent so would the General receiving the order. And this all happened before the 5 part order format. Staffs have to not only communicate quickly they have to communicate clearly and nowadays they have to be mobile. I was appalled at the expanse of tents and shelters that made up a brigade hq at one exercise and the probable electronic signature was frightening.
Speaking as someone without miilitary experience but with experience as 'staff' in both corporations and the federal government, I have to say this was a terrific and much needed explanation of what staff is, what it does, and why its important. One of the great 'myths' being perpetrated by tech-lords is that softward — and AI in particular — eliminates the need for staff. This is closely related to the mythology of self-organizing teams and the denigration of **all** hierarchical chains of 'command'.
Thanks!
Damn I love being on staff
Singapore tends to use S1-S4 at battalion level, which corresponds to your J1-J4
Very similar to the US system!
Hilarious and informative, especially the descriptions of each staff section 🤣 This leaves out a bunch of speciality sections, but does illustrate the coordinating parts clearly and accurately discusses the challenges of larger staffs. That first diagram certainly shows how internal frictions can slow things down, to a crawl.
Thank you! Yes, I tried to keep it as simple as possible - headquarters can be hugely varied and, after all, work to the Commander's need. If they want a seperate department, they will get it!
It all makes sense when you realize we’re the enemy.