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

• Author: Joseph Soeters
• Published date: 01 April 2022
• Date: 01 April 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X20970248
• Subject Matter: Commentaries

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X20970248

Armed Forces & Society

2022, Vol. 48(2) 480 –485

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X20970248

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

Commentary

Why It Is Important to Be

Cautious in the Analysis

of Military Organizations:

A Reply to Hasselbladh

and Yd´

en

Joseph Soeters

1

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.

Keywords

organizational learning, military organization, single-loop learning, double-loop

learning, Afghanistan, peace missions

1

Department of Organization Studies, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg

University, the Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Joseph Soeters, Department of Organization Studies, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences,

Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, Tilburg, the Netherlands.

Email: jmml.soeters@gmail.com