The article discusses the “adaptability gap” within the military, highlighting a disconnect between the stated belief that adaptability is the primary competitive advantage and the actual investments made to foster it. Key points include:
-
Adaptability as a Competitive Advantage: A senior military leader emphasized that America’s true strength lies in its people’s ability to think creatively and adapt, rather than its technology or weapons. However, discussions often pivot back to technological advancements, neglecting how to cultivate adaptability.
-
The Adaptability Gap: This term describes the distance between the importance placed on adaptability and the resources allocated to develop adaptive personnel. The author asserts that a competitive advantage is reflected in budget allocations and development programs, raising concerns about the military’s commitment to cultivating adaptability.
-
Lessons from Industry: Drawing parallels with Nokia, the article illustrates how organizations can overestimate their adaptability. Nokia recognized the need for change but failed to adapt swiftly due to internal challenges.
-
Budgeting for Adaptability: The author argues that effective military investment must reflect a commitment to fostering adaptability—this includes recruiting, training, rewarding adaptable thinkers, and challenging existing norms.
-
Specific Recommendations:
- Change Evaluation Metrics: Shift focus from execution to adaptability in unexpected situations.
- Practice Flexibility: Conduct exercises that require teams to adapt plans under changing conditions.
- Reward Learning: Recognize and reward instances of adaptability and innovative thinking.
-
Conclusion: For adaptability to be a genuine military asset, it must be integrated systematically. The military needs to ensure that its processes—from recruiting to promotions—account for adaptability, effectively bridging the gap between aspiration and capability. Without these changes, the military risks falling behind in a rapidly evolving environment.
