The formal chain of command reinforces the distinction by setting qualitatively different entry-level requirements, such as education and conferring greater social status to officers as was done in the British system. armed forces: officer, enlisted, and warrant officer (although the Air Force no longer has warrant officers). An important cultural artifact of positional power – that of the officer-enlisted divide – deserves renewed scrutiny. But not all costs are associated with human error. Another is the risk of coercive power becoming dominant, in which leaders show lessened respect or consideration of the views of subordinates. One cost is the introduction of single points of failure, where a communication breakdown can bring along a domino effect as a mistake propagates across a large formation.

Also, many specialists rely on referent power, such as military police who, despite typically lower rank, command great authority by virtue of their specialized roles in the military judicial system.Īs an organizing construct, linear chains can be costly. Other benefits include timeliness of decisions and clearly fixed responsibilities – such as the operating assumption that commanders are responsible for all that happens within their units. Soldiers needed orders from powerful commanders capable of convincing soldiers to advance in battle. The reliance on positional power is straightforward.

Questions of PowerĪ criticism of the linear chain is the degree to which it favors positional power, which combines legitimate (based on vested authorities), coercive (based on fear and sanction), and referent (based on something drawn from the organization, such as one’s rank) power. But how far should this go? Is the linear chain truly no longer relevant? These are the subjects of this essay. The military has already evolved much of its norms and practices away from the linear chain into greater reliance on centers and working groups, vestiges of flatter structures. On current and future battlefields, Strategic Corporals exercise leadership cyber warfare, artificial intelligence, and robotics are standard features urban environments are the probable settings and war will be cross-domain, high-speed, and complex. What about the military? With so much change in the private sector, continued adherence to formal structures in the military seems old-fashioned. From Google to Uber, dynamic organizational structures have proven very successful in meeting customer needs. From “ flattening” organizations in the late 20 th century to today’s algorithmic management, modern control and coordination structures are flexible and more responsive. As societies industrialized, formal chains of command were instituted in bureaucracy which would become the leading model of organization in the civilian sector.īut times are changing, and the civilian sector has been moving away from traditional bureaucracies because they can be too rigid in the face of information age challenges. The chain also formalized the separation of officers and soldiers into different castes. It made the generation, issuing, and following of orders simple despite the vastness of formations being put to battle. From Roman times until present, the chain of command fixed formal authorities and accountability from the highest leader to the front line soldier. Without a doubt, the chain of command is one of the most durable concepts in military organizations.

In the face of so much change in the private sector, continued adherence to formal structures in the military seems old-fashioned.

Ryzom listen to ranger chaing