Why It Is Important to Be Cautious in the Analysis of Military Organizations: A Reply to Hasselbladh and Ydén

3Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This article is a reply to a recent publication by Hasselbladh and Yden in this journal, entitled “Why Military Organizations Are Cautious About Learning?” They argue that there is good reason for military organizations not being very successful in organizational learning. Based on historical experiences related to the military’s bureaucratic character and specific task environment, they argue that military organization’s hesitation to learn is not necessarily dysfunctional. This reply refutes this assertion as it is not based on sufficient knowledge of organizational learning in general, but more importantly because it “scholarly” legitimizes the impeding of attempts to improve military performance in the broad sense of the word.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Soeters, J. (2022, April 1). Why It Is Important to Be Cautious in the Analysis of Military Organizations: A Reply to Hasselbladh and Ydén. Armed Forces and Society. SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X20970248

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free