{"id":18099,"date":"2012-12-18T19:04:36","date_gmt":"2012-12-18T19:04:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=18099"},"modified":"2012-12-18T19:04:36","modified_gmt":"2012-12-18T19:04:36","slug":"boyd-and-beyond-local-dc-event","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=18099","title":{"rendered":"Boyd and Beyond Local DC Event"},"content":{"rendered":"

[by J. Scott Shipman]<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n
\n
<\/dt>\n
Jim Hasik’s White Board Outline<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

At the suggestion of\u00a0Adam Elkus<\/a>, we were\u00a0privileged to host our first “local” Boyd and Beyond event on 15 December. We had 14 attend, and five speakers. Logistically, we turned our family room in to a fairly comfortable briefing area, using a wall with\u00a0Smart Sheets<\/a>\u00a0as a temporary white board. In keeping with our October events, we took up a collection and had pizza delivered for lunch. Coffee, soft drinks light snacks were provided. Each speaker was allotted 50 minutes, but given the participation of the audience, most talks lasted about 90 minutes. I should emphasize to those planning one of these events, to keep a lean speaker’s list, as the Q&A and discussion can easily double the time of a presentation—-and I believe all who attended would agree the comments\/discussion made already great presentations even better.<\/p>\n

My sincere thanks go out to my wife and partner, Kristen, for making this event look easy! She was the one who made sure everything was moving along and that folks felt at home. I would encourage others around the country to schedule and hold events through the year. We’re looking to do another in March 2013.<\/p>\n

Our speakers were:<\/p>\n

Jim Hasik<\/a>,\u00a0Beyond Hagiography:\u00a0Problems of Logic and Evidence in the Strategic Theories of John Boyd<\/p>\n

Francis Park<\/a>, The Path to Maneuver Warfare in the U.S. Marine Corps<\/p>\n

Robert Cantrell<\/a>, \u00a0Which Card Will You Play?<\/p>\n

Terry Barnhart<\/a>,\u00a0Designing and Implementing Maneuver Strategy in Transforming Major Organizations<\/p>\n

Marshall Wallace<\/a>,\u00a0Theories of Change and Models of Prediction<\/p>\n

I led off with a few comments on\u00a0the military professional and intellectual rigor<\/a>. I recommended the best book I’ve read this year:\u00a0Inventing Grand Strategy and Teaching Command<\/a>, by Jon Tetsuro Sumida, and the challenges he suggests in the realm of intellectual rigor.\u00a0He writes:<\/p>\n

\u201cIt remains to be seen\u00a0whether readers exist with the mind and will<\/em>\u00a0to accept his guidance on what necessarily is an arduous intellectual and moral voyage into the realm of war and politics.\u201d (emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I followed with the example from\u00a0An Unknown Future and a Doubtful Present: Writing the Victory Plan of 1941<\/a><\/strong>, by Charles E. Kirkpatrick.\u00a0Mr. Kirkpatrick\u2019s little book provides an excellent primer to the formulation of the United States\u2019 WWII strategy and a refreshing insight into the education of an master strategist, then\u00a0Major Albert C. Wedemeyer<\/a>, attached to the War Plans Division, the Army chief of staff\u2019s strategic planners, who wrote the Army strategy for WWII in 90 days. (read the review\u00a0here<\/a>) I suggested that military professionals should start something akin to a book club, where they can discuss and debate strategic issues and concept.<\/p>\n

Following my comments, Jim Hasik offered his critique of John Boyd’s work. Adam tweeted that we were a “tough crowd,” but Jim was able to discuss his misgivings with respect to Boyd’s work and a lively discussion got us started. For those unfamiliar, Jim is the author of a paper called, Beyond Hagiography, which generated controversy in the Boydian community following this year’s October event at Quantico. (reviewed\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0and at\u00a0zenpundit.com<\/a>)\u00a0Here is a link to the paper<\/a>. (see Hasik’s white board outline above).<\/p>\n

According to Hasik, Boyd erred when extrapolating from physical processes\/science to social processes. He reviewed Boyd’s use of science in his essay,\u00a0Destruction and Creation<\/a>, and suggested no literal correlation between\u00a0Clausius’ Second Law of Thermodynamics<\/a>\u00a0(entropy),\u00a0G\u00f6del’s\u00a0Incompleteness\u00a0Theorem<\/a>, and\u00a0Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle<\/a>\u00a0and human behavior (on this I concur with Hasik, as analogy or metaphor these scientific principles enlighten).\u00a0\u00a0Hasik asked if OODA scales from air-to-air combat to large scale events, and whether OODA was original (compared to\u00a0PDCA<\/a>, for example). One point that generated quite a bit of discussion was whether one could “like” Clausewitz or Sun Tzu and Boyd. Hasik questioned whether Boyd’s work should be judged as social science, history, or war studies, and suggested that further work was needed to fill in the gaps in his work. In October, someone suggested Boyd needed a “Plato,” someone to address Boyd’s work with less emphasis on science (as in\u00a0Osinga’s book<\/a>), thereby making Boyd’s work more accessible. The Strassler model was suggested; Strassler is an “unaffiliated scholar” who has written exhaustively referenced versions of\u00a0Thucydides<\/a>,\u00a0Herodotus<\/a>, and\u00a0Arrian<\/a>. [personal note: I believe a Strassler-like book on Boyd’s ideas would be a great resource] A great thought-provoking conversation.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/dt>\n
Francis Park’s White Board<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Francis Park’s talk on on maneuver warfare, the evidence of history began with “I’m a historian and I have a problem.” The irony wasn’t lost on the audience, as Francis is an active duty Army officer, speaking on the history of the USMC’s adoption of maneuver warfare (MW). Park called the Marine Corps “the most Darwinian of the services.” The venue for for the Corps discussion between MW advocates, and the “attritionists” was the\u00a0Marine Corps Gazette<\/a>. This venue was “unofficial,” otherwise the debate may have never happened. The Gazette’s forward-thinking editor made space and encouraged the debate, which was a\u00a0“long, bitter, and complex fight.”<\/p>\n

Park listed and discussed the champions of MW\u00a0Michael D. Wyly, G.I. Wilson, William Woods, William\u00a0Lind, and Alfred M. Gray. Park recommended Fideleon Damian’s master’s thesis,\u00a0THE ROAD TO FMFM 1: THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS AND\u00a0MANEUVER WARFARE DOCTRINE, 1979-1989<\/a>. (Adam Elkus recommended Eric Walters essay in the Small Wars Journal, titled\u00a0Fraud or Fuzziness? Dissecting William Owen’s Critique of Maneuver Warfare<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Park called the USMC adoption of MW a “confluence of fortune” that may have never happened without the vigorous efforts of proponents.<\/p>\n

Robert Cantrell’s\u00a0Which Card Will You Play? was an instructive and interactive example of Robert’s strategy cards. Cantrell has two decks of strategy playing cards,\u00a0one devoted to strategy<\/a>, the other to\u00a0sales strategy<\/a>. The user’s guide is at\u00a0www.artofwarcards.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Robert provided examples of how the cards are used to spark strategic thought and ideas. Volunteers pulled first one, then two cards from the decks, and read aloud and commented on how the statement(s) on the cards could be used in practice. For example, “Muddy The Water To Hide the Nets” was drawn (the 8 of clubs, a bit more on card suits from Robert below). The “strategy” is to “confuse your adversary so he cannot perceive your intentions. The “Basis” is “Confused adversaries make mistakes they would not make if they grasped your intentions.”<\/p>\n

Longtime friend of this blog, Fred Leland at\u00a0Law Enforcement Security Consulting<\/a>\u00a0is using the cards with success. Fred’s goal is “to get cops thinking more strategically and tactically in their work. I have been pulling a card from the deck and writing my thoughts and sharing them with cops who have been passing them along to their officers.” He is using Robert’s cards for “in-service” training, and providing a low cost entry into strategic thinking.<\/p>\n

I followed up with Robert and asked for an explanation of the card suits. Here is his response:<\/p>\n

Hi Scott – although they are gray delineations, the Hearts are oriented on the shaping self, the Clubs on shaping the field of contest…the diamonds are isolation strategies, and the spades are elimination strategies. This is the wolf pattern on the hunt: wolf becomes all the wolf it can be, shapes the hunt, isolates a member from the heard, brings that member down. With aces high – and again also gray – the higher cards tend to be strategies used from a greater abundance of strength and the lower numbers from comparative weakness in strength. Of course from here we can talk about gaining relative advantage if we cannot have absolute advantage to gain strength for a critical moment…and so on<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Terry Barnhart spoke on Boydian organizational applications in a talk called\u00a0Designing and Implementing Maneuver Strategy in Transforming Major Organizations. Terry said any organizational change had to be accomplished on the realms of the moral, mental, and the physical. With that in mind, he advised mapping the social networks of the organization and speaking in “the language of the culture” and “asking for what you need” when attempting to transformation. The end goal is “aligned autonomy,” and Terry’s recommended method of choice is taken from Boyd’s Patterns of Conflict,Slide 80:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/dt>\n
Patterns of Conflict, Slide 80<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Search out the “surfaces and gaps”, as reference from Slide 86, POC. In Boyd’s language:<\/p>\n

\u2022Present many (fast breaking) simultaneous and sequential happenings to generate confusion and disorder\u2014thereby stretch-out time for adversary to respond in a directed fashion.<\/p>\n

\u2022Multiply opportunities, to uncover, create, and penetrate\u00a0gaps<\/em>, exposed flanks, and vulnerable rears. [emphasis added]<\/p>\n

\u2022Create and multiply opportunities to splinter organism and envelop disconnected remnants thereby dismember adversary thru the tactical, grand tactical, and strategic levels.\u00a0<\/em>[emphasis added]<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In Terry’s words, “be everywhere at once” and establish relationships that result in buy-in, avoiding “no,” as Terry advised it can take a couple of years to overcome an objection. As aligned autonomy is reached, word will get around about the successes, and all of sudden what was a single agent of change becomes a movement. So Terry is recommending methods in maneuver warfare as a method in transforming\u00a0organization\u00a0culture.<\/p>\n

During Terry’s talk, Dave recommended\u00a0Orbiting the Giant Hairball, by Gordon MacKenzie<\/a>\u00a0as a guide in navigating the bureaucracy and obstacles often found in large organizations.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/dt>\n
Marshall Wallace’s White Board<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Marshall Wallace’s\u00a0Theories of Change and Models of Prediction was our final presentation. Marshall has emerged as one of the leading thinkers among Boydeans. Wallace said, “people are lazy” as he led off his discussion of change models. [personal note: I’ve come to refer to this laziness as “neurological economy”] His thinking was influence by Daniel Kaneman’s\u00a0Thinking, Fast and Slow<\/a>\u00a0and the Heath brother’s\u00a0Switch: How to Change Things when Change is Hard<\/a>. When change is desired, clarity is an absolute must have. Wallace offered the four models above as example of change. He said we must ask: “What is the change we want to see?” and ” What are the pre-conditions?”—instead of this model, most people begin with the idea, which more often than not, fails.<\/p>\n

Wallace walked our group through the models and emphasized the importance of tempo and used his wife’s efforts to establish dog parks in their city. Everything in government has a process, and Wallace said in this case “going slower than the politicians” paid off. Also, for programs of change, it is best if there is 100% transparency of goals. Both Marshall and Terry recommended a book called\u00a0The Progress Principle, by Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer<\/a>. The most powerful model for me was the one in the lower right corner—particular the use of “more people” and “key” people in any effort to affect change.<\/p>\n

Post meeting, Wallace posted the following to our Facebook group wall, that rounds out and expands his thinking:<\/p>\n

I was on the plane back to Boston yesterday morning, deeply engrossed in Terry\u2019s book [Creating a Lean R&D System<\/a>]\u00a0when a phrase leapt into my head: \u201cTarget the whole organism\u201d.<\/p>\n

As the Michaels in our lives (Moore and Polanyi) remind us, \u201cwe know more than we can say\u201d. I feel that quite clearly and I constantly struggle with language. I am never satisfied with any presentation I give because I know that, due to failures on my part to use the perfect word at the right moment, I left some understanding on the table.<\/p>\n

Somehow the weekend, with spectacular conversation, a good night\u2019s sleep, the enforced idleness of air travel, and Terry\u2019s superb book, shook something loose.<\/p>\n

Target the whole organism.<\/p>\n

What flashed through my mind at that moment were pieces of the talks.<\/p>\n

Jim prompted discussion of what the next set of books about\/on\/adding to Boyd should look like.<\/p>\n

Francis drew a pie wedge with \u201cfirepower\u201d on one edge of the pie and \u201cmaneuver\u201d on the other. He was describing two schools of thought on conflict as represented by these extremes. Everybody seemed to agree that the balance lay somewhere in the middle and was definitely related to the context.<\/p>\n

Robert\u2019s exercises with his strategy decks shook countless examples of strategic action and insight loose in our minds. The combination of cards, taking one from each of the competition and collaboration decks, was especially exciting.<\/p>\n

Terry laid out his plan to blitzkrieg his company, and invited us to make it better.<\/p>\n

I ended with a 4-cell matrix demonstrating the four basic categories under which all Theories of Change operate (more on this later). Experience has shown that most people operate out of an implicit Theory that traps them in one quadrant, whereas social change only occurs if all four quadrants are affected.<\/p>\n

Target the whole organism.<\/p>\n

I got home and opened up \u201cThe Strategic Game of ? and ?\u201d. Interaction and Isolation.<\/p>\n

Firepower and maneuver – at the same time. Competition and collaboration at the same time.<\/p>\n

Boyd side-by-side with his sources and several commentators. CEO, discouraged middle-managers, and the line at the same time. More People and Key People at both the individual level and the structural level all at the same time.<\/p>\n

Target the whole organism.<\/p>\n

A force that uses maneuver to confuse and firepower to destroy will dominate. A force that can swing rapidly between extremes and also find balance is even more slippery than one that acknowledges the \u201cnecessary\u201d balance. The two practices can be in separate parts of the battlespace (context matters), but because both are occurring, the confusion generated may well be more intense. It looks as though the force is two distinct armies and communication among the enemy may be unintelligible because the threats being faced are so different.<\/p>\n

Bringing collaborative concepts into competitive spaces or vice versa while not abandoning the underlying logic of the space opens up more options, challenges notions, and expands horizons. Can we interact and isolate at the same time? What does that snowmobile look like?<\/p>\n

If we want to effect social change, we need to target the whole system. We can sequence our efforts in time, though we can\u2019t forget to move as quickly as the circumstances allow. At the same time, every effort must be connected to the whole organism.<\/p>\n

The target is not the target. I do not aim at the eye of the fish. I don\u2019t wan\u2019t to hit the bullseye.<\/p>\n

I want to pick up the whole madding crowd of intense archers, cynical kings, and wildly cheering spectators and move them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This was the first “local” event, and based on the response, we’ll be doing these a few times a year. Many thanks to all who participated, and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to \u00a0you all!<\/p>\n

UPDATE: Dave shared these with our group. Francis said, “We live and die by bumper stickers.” Here is a good example:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Here is Dave’s interpretation of the Sufi elephant:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Cross-posted at To Be or To Do<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[by J. Scott Shipman] Jim Hasik’s White Board Outline   At the suggestion of\u00a0Adam Elkus, we were\u00a0privileged to host our first “local” Boyd and Beyond event on 15 December. We had 14 attend, and five speakers. Logistically, we turned our family room in to a fairly comfortable briefing area, using a wall with\u00a0Smart Sheets\u00a0as a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[698,755,763,604,147,34,525,736,618,338,790,863,462,367,821,340,822,270,374,343,19,162,558,481,127,530,1,217],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-698","category-alfred-thayer-mahan","category-boyd-2012","category-clausewitzian","category-diplomatic-history","category-education","category-epistemology","category-fred-leland","category-j-scott-shipman","category-john-boyd","category-law-enforcement","category-maneuver-warfare","category-metacognition","category-military-history","category-military-professionalism","category-military-reform","category-military-training-education","category-national-security","category-navy","category-readers","category-recommended-reading","category-small-wars-journal","category-social-science","category-strategist","category-strategy","category-strategy-and-war","category-uncategorized","category-warriors"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18099","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18099"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18099\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18113,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18099\/revisions\/18113"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}