Allied Unity of Command in the Second World War: A Study in Regional Military Organization

Leighton, Richard M.

doi:10.2307/2145165

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Military organizations have adapted over many centuries (Winnefeld & Johnson, 1993;Allard, 1996;Palmer, 2005;Leighton, 1952). Military hierarchy organizations have enjoyed refinement through combat, training, and doctrinal development (Janowitz, 1959).…”

Section: Purpose Of Trust Research Within the Context Of Differentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust, Mistrust, and Organizational Design: Understanding the Effects of Social Configurations

Moonier¹,

Baker²,

Greene³

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words)Trust matters for task performance, particularly when the task involves dealing with potential threat or crisis. When faced with important decisions in such situations, the social connections between managers and front-line employees are critical. Drawing on the concept of trust and organizational design we investigate and provide a comprehensive overview of the effects of trust and mistrust on two different organizational designs. The formation of effective partnerships is influenced greatly by trust. Trust sets the stage for necessary factors for collaboration such as social interaction, communication, negotiation, and cooperation. The organizations are structured as Hierarchies or self-managing teams, also known as Edge organizations. This project analyzes the effects of high and low conditions of trust on two distinct structures of organizations offering insight to appropriate selection of design structures within varying conditions of trust. The analysis also offers a comparison of each group's performance to determine the most effective structures under certain conditions of trust. We find that collaborative, sharing practices (an organic, flat environment, Edge) in a trusting organizational climate produce the greatest levels of task performance. When decisions need to be expedited, however, trust is non-significant, and formal relationships between organization members are more salient. The implications for organizing in coalition type environments and military units are discussed. NUMBER OF PAGES 7714. SUBJECT TERMS Edge, Trust, Organizational Design, Hierarchy, Problem Solving PRICE CODE SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT Unclassified LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

show abstract

Section: Purpose Of Trust Research Within the Context Of Differentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust, Mistrust, and Organizational Design: Understanding the Effects of Social Configurations

Moonier¹,

Baker²,

Greene³

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature on coalition effectiveness is dominated by the above-noted arguments for establishing the unity of command. Such arrangements purportedly allow for efficient management of the disparate capabilities, varied political motivations, and myriad organizational pathologies that accompany the combination of forces drawn from multiple sovereign states, thereby facilitating their effectiveness in combat (Leighton, 1952: 401–402, 422; Moller, 2016; Weitsman, 2003a: 104; Wilkins, 2006: 1122–1123). There are, however, two other types of arguments made regarding the sources of coalition effectiveness.…”

Section: Understanding Coalition Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 Conventional wisdom suggests coalitions are most effective when they adopt the principle of unity of command—when coalition members subordinate their forces to a single state’s commanding officer and staff. By bestowing vast authority on a discrete set of officers, such arrangements are believed to facilitate the coordination and use of disparate national capabilities, management of principal–agent problems and free-riding, and smoothing of transaction costs inherent to coalitional warfighting (Leighton, 1952: 401–402, 422; Moller, 2016; Weitsman, 2003a: 104; Wilkins, 2006: 1122–1123). Unity of command’s purported virtues grow when one notes that coalition members often seek ends beyond securing collective battlefield objectives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizing for performance: coalition effectiveness on the battlefield

Zielinski

Grauer

2020

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

States often fight side-by-side on the battlefield. As detailed in our new dataset, Belligerents in Battle, 178 of the 480 major land battles fought during interstate wars waged between 1900 and 2003 involved at least one multinational coalition. Though coalition partners fight battles together to increase their odds of securing specific objectives, they vary significantly in their capacity to do so. Why? Drawing on organization theory insights, we argue that coalitions’ variable battlefield effectiveness is a function of interactions between their command structures and the resources each partner brings to the fight. Coalitions adopting command structures tailored to simultaneously facilitate the efficient use of partners’ variably sized resource contributions and discourage free-riding, shirking, and other counterproductive actions will fight effectively; those that employ inappropriate command structures will not. Evidence from Anglo-French operations during World War I and Axis operations during World War II strongly supports our claim. For scholars, our argument and findings about the importance of military organizational dynamics for the operation and performance of coalitions raise important new questions and provide potential insights about coalition formation, duration, and termination. For practitioners, it is significant that, since 1990, 36 of 49 of major battles in interstate wars have involved at least one coalition and the majority of those coalitions have been, like the cases we study, ad hoc in nature. Understanding how command arrangements affect performance and getting organization right at the outset of wars is increasingly important.

show abstract

Allied Unity of Command in the Second World War: A Study in Regional Military Organization

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Trust, Mistrust, and Organizational Design: Understanding the Effects of Social Configurations

Trust, Mistrust, and Organizational Design: Understanding the Effects of Social Configurations

Organizing for performance: coalition effectiveness on the battlefield

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About