Military organisations operate in complex environments and difficult circumstances. During deployment, armies are confronted with dangers, cunning enemies, unexpected changes, and a general level of uncertainty. The obvious implication is that armies need to be able to deal with complexity, or dynamic complexity as it will be labelled in this book. This study develops an analytical framework that is composed of different ingredients of formal theory. Central to this framework is the idea that the ability to 'doubt' is of crucial importance for organisations that are confronted with dynamic complexity. From this it follows that organisations need to organise their ability to doubt in such environments. The framework is used to analyse the way military units of the Dutch Armed Forces, when deployed to perform peace operations, dealt with dynamic complexity. Subsequently, it is analysed how specific organisational characteristics of the mother organisation in the Netherlands influenced the ability of the deployed units to organise doubt.
- IntroductionPART IThe architecture of this study1. The architecture of this study1.1 The background1.2 The starting point of this study1.3 The relevance of the core concept1.4 The implications of choosing "dynamic complexity" as a core concept1.5 The goal and central questions of this study1.6 An overview2. Methodological considerations2.1 Methodological characteristics of the case studies2.2 Methodological structure of this study2.3 Methodological positionPART IIAnalytical framework: Dealing with dynamic complexity3. Systems theory as background3.1 Connecting multiple levels of explanation3.2 Systems theory as a macro theoretical framework3.3 A history of systems theory3.4 Dynamic complexity and the problem of openness3.5 Final remarks4. The concept of dynamic complexity and the organizing problem4.1 The basic problem of dealing with dynamic complexity4.2 The problem of openness as the essence of the organizing problem4.3 Final remarks5. A model of dealing with dynamic complexity5.1 A description of meaningful action5.2 A model of organizing5.3 Positioning Weick6. Normative aspect of the organizing model6.1 Normative elements in the organizing model6.2 The concept of doubt and its intricacies6.3 Organizing doubt6.4 The influence of design on operational units6.5 Weick and "naturalistic decision-making"6.6 Final remarks7. Doubt and argumentation7.1 The concept of "argumentation7.2 Similarities between Billig and Weick7.3 Argumentation and its subtleties7.4 Consequences of the previous discussions7.5 Conclusions from part twoPART IIIAnalytical framework: Organizing doubt in an organizational system8. Organizing doubt8.1 What is well-organized argumentation?8.2 Perspectives on organizing argumentation8.3 Analyzing the organization of doubt in the cases8.4 Organizing argumentation: Billig and Habermass8.5 Final remarks9. Doubt and the organizational structure9.1 The influence of organizational structure on argumentation9.2 Analyzing self-organizing potential in the cases9.3 Implications of the previous discussions10. Leadership and the internal structure of argumentation10.1 Dynamic complexity and self-organizing units10.2 Leadership in a self-organizing unit10.3 The spirit of contradiction10.4 Specific influence of leaders on argumentation10.5 Vision and argumentation10.6 Analyzing leadership in the cases10.7 Engaging the object of study: The function of the analytical frameworkPART IVAnalyzing the cases11. Peace operations according to the Army11.1 Peace operations according to the doctrine11.2 "Peace operations" as a fuzzy category11.3 Peace operations and complexity11.4 An illustration: KFOR (1999)11.5 The Army and dealing with dynamic complexity12. The Logistic and Transport Battalion12.1 General Description12.2 Dealing with dynamic complexity12.3 The structure of the operational units12.4 Leadership12.5 The resulting hypotheses13. SFOR13.1 General description13.2 Dealing with dynamic complexity13.3 The structure of the operational units13.4 Leadership13.5 The resulting hypotheses14. Dutchbat14.1 General description14.2 Dealing with dynamic complexity14.3 The structure of the operational units14.4 Leadership14.5 The resulting hypotheses14.6 Final remarksPART VThe influence of the mother organization15. The influence of the mother organization15.1 Indications of the influences of the mother organization15.2 The influence of structural characteristics of the mother organization15.3 The ambitions of the reflection16. The Army doctrine and dealing with dynamic complexity16.1 A description of the doctrine16.2 The military doctrine and the analytical framework of this study16.3 The military doctrine and the SFOR case16.4 Hypotheses about the influence of the doctrine17. The influence of the organizational structure17.1 The organizational structure of the mother organization17.2 The influence of the assembly process17.3 The direct effect of the organizational structure17.4 Hypotheses about the influence of the organizational structure18. The influence of leadership structures18.1 The nature of the leadership structures18.2 The leadership structures18.3 The education of leaders18.4 Hypotheses about the influence of leadershipPART VI19. The implications of the reflections19.1 The substantive theory19.2 Proposals for future research19.3 Final remarksAppendix IAppendix IIAppendix IIILiteratureName and Subject Index