C-6. Conclusion a. Predicting technological developments that might impact future Army operations is difficult. The uncertainty, competiveness, and dynamic nature of future operational environments, the array of threats, the range of potential future missions and their emergent nature provide the basis for this appendix. b. The Army focus is on advanced technological capabilities that provide commanders and staffs with the tools necessary to understand and operate within the environment in 2020-2040. The capabilities and technologies discussed are purposely broad, serve as a general guide, and allow for unforeseen technological advances or breakthroughs. Therefore, the capabilities and technologies identified are not prescriptive in nature. They fuel the dialogue between user representatives, research and development organizations, and systems developers. c. The Army’s ability to address the commander’s future is predicated on capability and system developers working together across organizational boundaries. Success will happen through the efforts of dedicated professionals more concerned with providing leaders, Soldiers, and Army Civilians with mission command capabilities and less concerned with organizational goals. Appendix D Risks of Adopting this Concept D-1. Risks from concept hierarchy The implementation risks stated in the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations, ACC, and AOC, apply equally to this concept. The AFC-MC has identified the following additional risks. D-2. within the Army functional concept for mission command (AFC-MC) a. Commanders centering on themselves and their own ideas. (1) The Army force requires commanders and leaders with strong character, presence, and intellect. They must be confident in their own tactical and technical expertise, judgment, and thinking abilities. While the commander may be the wisest and most experienced person in an organization, excessive confidence in, and insistence upon acceptance of, their own understanding is as detrimental as too little confidence. Instead, competent and confident leaders display intellectual humility, are approachable, encourage reasoned candor and open dialogue, listen actively to all perspectives, and ensure others voice honest opinions without fear of negative consequences. An open and candid environment is key in creating a unit that recognizes and adapts to change. Approachable commanders show respect for other opinions, even if contrary or against mainstream thought. Commanders designate others to offer differing viewpoints and perspectives to guard against groupthink and the tendency to adopt the accepted viewpoint blindly.
C-6. Conclusion a. Predicting technological developments that might impact future Army operations is difficult. The uncertainty, competiveness, and dynamic nature of future operational environments, the array of threats, the range of potential future missions and their emergent nature provide the basis for this appendix. b. The Army focus is on advanced technological capabilities that provide commanders and staffs with the tools necessary to understand and operate within the environment in 2020-2040. The capabilities and technologies discussed are purposely broad, serve as a general guide, and allow for unforeseen technological advances or breakthroughs. Therefore, the capabilities and technologies identified are not prescriptive in nature. They fuel the dialogue between user representatives, research and development organizations, and systems developers. c. The Army’s ability to address the commander’s future is predicated on capability and system developers working together across organizational boundaries. Success will happen through the efforts of dedicated professionals more concerned with providing leaders, Soldiers, and Army Civilians with mission command capabilities and less concerned with organizational goals. Appendix D Risks of Adopting this Concept D-1. Risks from concept hierarchy The implementation risks stated in the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations, ACC, and AOC, apply equally to this concept. The AFC-MC has identified the following additional risks. D-2. within the Army functional concept for mission command (AFC-MC) a. Commanders centering on themselves and their own ideas. (1) The Army force requires commanders and leaders with strong character, presence, and intellect. They must be confident in their own tactical and technical expertise, judgment, and thinking abilities. While the commander may be the wisest and most experienced person in an organization, excessive confidence in, and insistence upon acceptance of, their own understanding is as detrimental as too little confidence. Instead, competent and confident leaders display intellectual humility, are approachable, encourage reasoned candor and open dialogue, listen actively to all perspectives, and ensure others voice honest opinions without fear of negative consequences. An open and candid environment is key in creating a unit that recognizes and adapts to change. Approachable commanders show respect for other opinions, even if contrary or against mainstream thought. Commanders designate others to offer differing viewpoints and perspectives to guard against groupthink and the tendency to adopt the accepted viewpoint blindly.
TP525-3-3.docx