Content uploaded by Mie Augier
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mie Augier on Dec 20, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mie Augier
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mie Augier on Dec 20, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive
DSpace Repository
Faculty and Researchers Faculty and Researchers' Publications
2020
Organizational perspectives on the maneuver
warfare movement in the United States
Marine Corps: insights from the work of James
G. March
Augier, Mie; Barrett, Sean F.X.
Augier, Mie, and Sean FX Barrett. "Organizational perspectives on the maneuver
warfare movement in the United States Marine Corps: insights from the work of
James G. March."Industrial and Corporate Change(2020).
http://hdl.handle.net/10945/64258
This publication is a work of the U.S. Government as defined in Title 17, United
States Code, Section 101. Copyright protection is not available for this work in the
United States.
Downloaded from NPS Archive: Calhoun
Organizational perspectives on the maneuver
warfare movement in the United States Marine
Corps: insights from the work of James G. March
Mie Augier
1,
* and Sean F. X. Barrett
2
1
Graduate School of Defense Management, Naval Postgraduate School, 1 University Circle, Monterey, CA
93943. e-mail: meaugier@nps.edu; mieaugier@yahoo.com and
2
3000 Marine Corps Pentagon, Washington,
DC 20350-3000. e-mail: seanfxbarrett@gmail.com; sean.barrett@usmc.mil
*Main author for correspondence.
Abstract
This article describes a key period in the institutional and organizational history of the United States
Marine Corps. Using historical, archival, and interview material, we apply some of the ideas and per-
spectives of James G. March to understand the organizational dynamics and mechanisms that
enabled the maneuver warfare movement and made the modern Marine Corps a more innovative
and adaptive organization. We build on and integrate several streams of March’s research, legacies,
and interests, including understanding the organizational conditions that help novelty and outlier-
ness flourish, finding interest and value in apparent contradictions, and deriving implications for or-
ganizational scholarship and for the organization under study.
JEL classification: B25, D20, O31, O39
1. Introduction
Jim March’s interest in understanding the dynamics of organizational adaptation, behavior, and decision making led
him to study institutions, including business organizations and universities (e.g. Cyert and March, 1963;March
et al., 2000). He often started with an empirical issue or problem, then tried to understand the underlying dynamics
(what he sometimes called “little ideas”) that could lead to insights into the issue (even if it meant having to give up a
favorite theory or two along the way), before revising or generating a conceptual point. Little ideas, he felt, were
often what could help to identify and explore the dynamics and mechanisms underlying decision making and organ-
izational behavior.
Occasionally, March applied his ideas and interests to military organizations. For instance, in the mid-1980s,
March (and his collaborator, Roger Weissinger-Baylon) organized workshops at the Hoover Institution and the
Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) focusing on individual and organizational decision making in political and military
organizations. These workshops blended perspectives (and participants) from academia, national security, and mili-
tary organizations to explore and discuss how academic perspectives on decision making under ambiguity, though
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC 2019. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain
in the US.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 2020, Vol. 29, No. 1, 143–162
doi: 10.1093/icc/dtz063
Advance Access Publication Date: 23 December 2019
Original article
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
developed in a nonmilitary context, might also apply to military organizations and contribute to understanding—per-
haps even improving—decision making in military organizations, particularly the United States Navy.
1
Additionally, during the last years of his life, March was interested in exploring some of the dynamics of the
United States Marine Corps (USMC) as an organization.
2
He approached the topic of the USMC with his characteris-
tic combination of curiosity and insight, reading broadly about the USMC, asking questions (including about what
questions Marine students at NPS were asking so he could understand how they think, not just what they do and
how their organization functions), finding value in empirical issues that seemingly contradicted our scholarly theories
(such as the embrace of both novelty and rigidity), yet then quickly turning them into researchable angles for further
study.
In March’s approach to understanding Marines and the Marine Corps, he was characteristically driven by both
his quest and flair for understanding the world as an integrated system and whole, as well as by the scholarly need to
study and analyze it. In conversation, especially if one thought one (finally) had a handle of the analytic underpin-
nings of an issue or phenomenon, he looked for something to contradict it, challenging our tendency to analyze and
break things into parts, as if the world was always a linear system with clear cause and effect. He thereby nudged one
to a more synthesizing or integrative approach. However, at the same time, he did not ignore analysis and models as
long as one did not take a “model is just a model” approach, but instead knew their value as a metaphor and a lan-
guage that could improve our understanding about the world, too.
3
This article tries to extend March’s interest in the USMC by using some of his ideas to study parts of the organiza-
tion. In particular, inspired by March’s own interest in and analysis of novelty, creative and innovative individuals
and their roles in organizational adaptation, we use Marchian ideas to understand a particular period in USMC his-
tory.
4
Unlike many popular approaches to innovation, March did not find recipes for “how to be successful
innovators” particularly useful or interesting, preferring instead to focus on issues such as the roles of novelty, ambi-
guity, uncertainty, and failure; the tolerance for foolishness and outlier thinking; the organizational aspects needed
for innovation to come to fruition; and the many mechanisms working against it. For novelty and outlier thinking to
be useful for organizational adaptation, it has to survive. However, because an organization’s reaction to new ideas
or novelty is often like an organism’s reaction to a viral infection, organizations have to find ways to buffer new ideas
from management’s inclination to suffocate them. March was also well aware (and often made the point) that most
novel ideas are bad. Thus, organizations wishing to encourage innovation must either increase their flow or richness
or become better able to filter them, selecting which ones will eventually be useful. This, of course, is part of the
Marchian view of the adaptive dilemma underlying organizational evolution and adaptation: how to balance compe-
tency/mastery/efficiency/stability with novelty/imagination/deviance/innovation.
March was interested in the mechanisms underlying novelty and innovation themselves and also in how novelty,
innovative thinking, and organizational aspects occasionally came together in organizations to form a movement
that could influence things more broadly and make entire organizations more conducive to innovation and innova-
tive thinking, even though it often did not last (e.g. Augier et al., 2015). For March, such movements can be
1 Invited speakers became subsequent contributors to the book March and Weissinger-Baylon (1986) published. This
book resulted from discussions at these workshops and included behavioral decision scholars (e.g. Kahneman, Slovic,
and Fischoff), organization scholars (e.g. March and Michael Cohen), and defense and national security people such as
Andrew Marshall. March (1965) also included a chapter on military organizations in his Handbook of Organizations. His
interest in military organizations goes back to at least his work with Andrew Marshall at the RAND Corporation, where
he was part of a group led by Marshall. This group discussed organizational behavior in the context of military organiza-
tions. March also coauthored a report on bureaucratic behavior in the Soviet Union along with Joe Bower, C.
Christensen, Andrew Marshall, and Graham Allison.
2 His interest in the USMC resulted in an unfinished paper that we hope someday will be finished.
3 Herb Simon also made this point concerning the reintegration of the behavioral social sciences and the development of
languages (e.g. conceptual, verbal, mathematical, and computational), which need to be driven by insight and under-
standing, scholars use: “The aim of a language is to say something – and not merely something about the language
itself” (Simon, 1954: 1).
4 One could have used many different Marchian angles to study the Marine Corps including, for instance, studying the
evolution of written rules and routines over time (e.g. March et al., 2000). We return to some suggestions for further
Marchian explorations of the Marine Corps later.
144 M. Augier and S. F. X. Barrett
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
instrumental in facilitating organizational innovation and adaptation, making it all the more important for organiza-
tion scholars to study them even if they are difficult, if not impossible, to design, plan, and predict. They are essential,
too, for the generation and (somewhat) preservation of novelty and overcoming the many problems associated with
maintaining a balance between exploitation and exploration (e.g. Levinthal and March, 1993: 105–107).
One of March’s colleagues, Leavitt (1996), provided a useful mechanism—“hot groups”—through which such
movements can form, spread, and transform organizations. Leavitt’s initial discussion of hot groups mentioned the
intellectual environment at the old Carnegie Tech Graduate School of Industrial Administration (GSIA) as an
“exemplar” of a hot group (another was at MIT)—innovative groups that are exciting, productive, and all consum-
ing (Leavitt, 1996: 288–289).
5
March was part of the same hot group, and his own interest in them (even if not
necessarily explicitly by that label) was undoubtedly influenced by his own experiences in them as well. March noted
that the GSIA environment made for an “extraordinary community” where people worked 7 days a week and at
night, fostering important developments in economics, organization studies, and strategy and serving as a poster
child for reform in business schools and management education. Others, including Herb Simon and Oliver
Williamson, have similarly described the environment at GSIA, where people were intensely devoted to ideas and
scholarship and worked together across disciplines, backgrounds, and ranks.
6
March also spent time at another “hot
group” place, the RAND Corporation, and later on tried to build similar groups (or at least help to nurture the condi-
tions for them) at Irvine and at Stanford (March et al., 2000). Others who had experienced the GSIA environment
also tried to help build ‘hot groups’ at their subsequent institutions.
7
Thus, March’s interest in hot groups was per-
sonal (having experienced the excitement and productive work they could generate), institutional (knowing that or-
ganizational and leadership aspects could help or hinder hot groups’ ability to flare), and intellectual (wanting to
understand why and how they sometimes emerged, what we might learn from them, and how they are essential for
the generation of novelty).
March and Olsen (2011) and Lipman-Blumen and Leavitt (1999a,b) similarly identify the role of crises in the tol-
erance organizations have for nonconformists and those that want to break rules, a key element that drove the forma-
tion of a hot group that proved instrumental to the transformation of the modern Marine Corps during the episode
we study here. Hot groups thrive on debate and disagreement and, thus, can serve as a mechanism to bridge the
perceived divide between exploitation and exploration and are a natural conceptual outgrowth of March’s own
work, in addition to something he personally encountered. It is in this spirit that we discuss the Marine Corps, an
institution that seems to have had some success in attracting outliers and nurturing a hot group movement during a
period of reflection prompted by crisis following failures in Vietnam.
2. Elements of USMC history
“We have two companies of Marines running rampant all over the northern half of this island, and three Army regi-
ments pinned down in the southwestern corner, doing nothing. What the hell is going on?”—Attributed to GEN
John W. Vessey Jr., U.S. Army (ret.), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the assault on Grenada, 1983
March’s interest in Marines was not only how they seem to be able to attract people who have perhaps a few
more “outlier” qualities than most, but also how the organization itself has evolved as something of an outlier (or
underdog) amidst the other, much larger services. And yet, the Marines have still enjoyed some success, sometimes
perhaps even more than their larger “siblings,” despite (or perhaps because of) the odds stacked against them, as the
quote above illustrates. Indeed, the Marine Corps has historically maintained a somewhat precarious position in the
American military establishment as “perennially the smallest kid on the block in a hostile neighborhood” (Krulak,
5 In his later collaborative pieces with Lipman-Blumen, Leavitt wrote more about the role of hot groups in facilitating in-
novation in organizations, including a book-length discussion regarding how to seed, feed, and use hot groups to im-
prove organizations.
6 See, for instance, Simon (1991) and Williamson (1996,2004). Though not using the terminology of hot groups, they cap-
ture the emphasis on very motivated and focused people: “It was an infectious place” (Williamson, 1996: 350).
7 When March left Carnegie to become dean at Irvine, he tried to establish another “hot group”—one with no depart-
ments, less regard for rank than ideas, and where scholars from different backgrounds could collaborate and learn
from each other. Bill Pounds (2004) has also described how he, inspired by the Carnegie experience, tried to imitate that
at MIT.
Organizational perspectives on the maneuver warfare movement 145
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
1984: 3). Due to its small size and its overlap into the domains (e.g. land, sea, and air) of the other services, it has
often faced challenges to its existence. According to Lieutenant General Victor “Brute” Krulak, Marines “ha[ve]
learned through hard experience that fighting for the right to fight [has] often presented greater challenges than fight-
ing their country’s enemies,” resulting in the often-expressed belief on the part of Marines that, “They’re after us”
(Krulak, 1984: 15, 13).
8
As a result, the Marine Corps has perhaps been more aware of the larger organizational, in-
stitutional, and societal forces shaping its coevolutionary organizational adaptation over time and has gone to great
lengths to differentiate itself from the other services. Such aspects have imbued the organization with a willingness to
adapt both operationally and bureaucratically and made the Marine Corps more accepting of outlier qualities, be-
cause the organization has viewed differentiating itself a matter of survival.
The USMC traces its roots to at least 1739 and the American colonies’ formation of four regiments that served
under the command of the governor of Virginia with the British fleet in its war with Spain. The first Marines in 1775
derived their duties from English custom, serving as soldiers of the sea that fought aboard, but did not sail, the ships
to which they were assigned. Comprised of members of Philadelphia’s semiskilled and unskilled laborers, they were
largely recruited from the city’s taverns, including (famously) Tun Tavern, and were ignorant of not only naval war-
fare, but also the seafaring lifestyle. Though pay was similar to that in state navies, life in the infant Corps was more
arduous. Additionally, service with privateers offered the potential for greater pay, leading to recruiting problems
and a certain outlier-ness quality from the beginning.
After years of organizational confusion concerning the Marines’ relationship with the Navy, the Marine Corps
gained its first semblance of institutional stability under the leadership of Archibald Henderson, who served on active
duty as a Marine officer for over 52 years and as Commandant of the Marine Corps for over 38 years (1820–1859;
Alexander, 2004: 73). When Henderson took over as Commandant, the Marine Corps was in disarray, but under his
stewardship, the Marine Corps more than doubled in strength (from 922 Marines in 1820). In the face of repeated
bureaucratic threats to the Corps’ existence, Henderson developed an extensive network of allies (most notably, se-
nior line officers in the Navy) and managed to defend the existing roles and mission of the Marine Corps, which he
viewed as serving “on board the Ships of War in distant seas for the protection of our widely extended commerce”—
namely as ships guards protecting the ship’s captain from his crew and as sharpshooters ready to form boarding or
landing parties—and as sentries at navy yards (Millett, 1991: 58–59, 69; Alexander, 2004: 63).
9
Under his leader-
ship, the Marine Corps adapted to emerging requirements and conducted extended land campaigns with the Army
for the first time during the Indian wars and Mexican War. Similarly driven by a desire to demonstrate the Corps’
utility, Henderson’s Marines also became involved in domestic peacekeeping incidents on four occasions from 1851
to 1858 (Millett, 1991: 85). Henderson, thus, expanded the scope of the Corps’ duties while also beginning to push
needed administrative reforms to professionalize the force—years before the military reform movement in the 1870s
and 1880s. He urged the authorization of a retired list for older or infirm officers so they could make way for
younger officers, strict examination of officer candidates’ educational and moral fitness, more education, artillery
training to project power ashore, and the possibility of assigning West Point graduates to the Marine Corps (Millett,
1991: 84; Dawson, 1998: 747–748).
10
8Krulak (1984: 13) notes some 15 different times a “vigilant” Congress was needed to preserve the Corps and five occa-
sions in particular that Congress cast aside a motion that he feels would have damaged or destroyed the Marine
Corps.
9 Lieutenant Colonel Commandant Archibald Henderson to Secretary of the Navy Smith Thompson, February 7, 1821,
Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC), “Letters Sent, 1798–1884,” Records of the United States Marine Corps, Record
Group (RG) 127, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC.
10 Lieutenant Colonel Commandant Archibald Henderson to Secretary of the Navy Samuel Southard, March 11, 1828,
HQMC, “Letters Sent, 1798–1884,” RG 127; Colonel Commandant Archibald Henderson to Secretary of the Navy William
Graham, October 15, 1851, HQMC, “Letters Sent, 1798–1884,” RG 127; Colonel Commandant Archibald Henderson to
Secretary of the Navy John Kennedy, November 11, 1852, HQMC, “Letters Sent, 1798–1884,” RG 127; Colonel
Commandant Archibald Henderson to Secretary of the Navy James Dobbin, November 17, 1853, HQMC, “Letters Sent,
1798–1884,” RG 127; Colonel Commandant Archibald Henderson to Secretary of the Navy James Dobbin, November 10,
1854, HQMC, “Letters Sent, 1798–1884,” RG 127; Colonel Commandant Archibald Henderson to Secretary of the Navy
Isaac Toucey, November 12, 1857, HQMC, “Letters Sent, 1798–1884,” RG 127; Colonel Commandant Archibald
Henderson to Secretary of the Navy Isaac Toucey, November 20, 1858, HQMC, “Letters Sent, 1798–1884,” RG 127.
146 M. Augier and S. F. X. Barrett
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
As modern warship technology advanced and the professionalization of the Navy bluejacket improved, the Navy
increasingly looked at the Marines’ ships guard function as obsolete and not suited for the United States’ more expan-
sive foreign policy (e.g. Rodgers, 1888;Fullam, 1896). Additionally, following new territorial acquisitions resulting
from the Spanish War, the Navy needed some means to enable its new short-range battleships to operate across long
stretches of open ocean, requiring either permanent bases in potential overseas areas of operation or an extensive
string of temporary, “stepping-stone” bases to supply and repair vessels. Lacking the imperial prowess of its
European rivals, the stepping-stone option was the only realistic solution for the American Navy. At their first meet-
ing, the General Board, established in March 1900 to “consider questions relating to the efficient preparation of the
fleet in case of war and for the naval defense of the coast” (Clifford, 1973: 6) and to advise the Secretary of the Navy
on war plans, bases, and general naval policy (Spector, 1977: 101), recommended that the Marines “would be best
adapted and most available for immediate and sudden call” in the defense of a naval advance base (Clifford, 1973:
8). The Commandant agreed to set about establishing and properly equipping a one-thousand-man expeditionary
force capable of operating independently as an advance base force (Cosmas and Shulimson, 1983: 122; Millett,
1991: 271–272).
11
Following service in World War I, the Marine Corps developed an amphibious assault capability from this initial
advance base force concept. Earl Hancock “Pete” Ellis, hailed as the prophet or father of amphibious warfare, most
especially in Marine Corps lore, was an outlier. He was a loner who suffered from neurasthenia and alcoholism and
for the first part of his career lacked a political or senior officer sponsor. However, in penning the report, Advanced
Base Operations in Micronesia, Ellis not only recognized that advanced bases were required to support the fleet, but
since Japan occupied the former German holdings in the Marshalls, Carolines, and Palaus, Ellis also made a radical
leap from established doctrine by identifying the requirement for forced entry. He subsequently emphasized the im-
portance of feints, maneuver, and surprise; laid out a task-organized landing force; and presciently described the se-
quence of events of the major fleet action that decided the war in the Pacific (Ballendorf and Bartlett, 1997: 119–
122).
Following the war, the Marine Corps again had to fight for its survival in defense unification battles.
Demonstrating its penchant for adapting to a changing bureaucratic environment, the Marine Corps (which had
recruited professional newspapermen in Washington, DC to serve as combat correspondents and increase the Corps’
public profile during the war) did not let its public relations infrastructure atrophy after the war, but rather adapted
the Marines’ image of hardened, dedicated warriors to peacetime by leveraging the “language of the American family
life” (O’Connell, 2012: 85). For example, the Marines created programs such as Toys for Tots in 1947, built alli-
ances in Hollywood, and provided unmatched support and cooperation for war films such as Sands of Iwo Jima, all
of which helped to soften the Corps’ image and quell concerns associated with demobilization and the lingering
effects of war. The USMC also became actively engaged in sending veterans into politics, orchestrating congressional
support, and building grassroots networks of support (O’Connell, 2012).
In addition to adjusting to these bureaucratic battles, the Marine Corps had to adapt its amphibious base-seizure
mission given the advent of the nuclear age. Following a series of Navy-directed nuclear tests in the summer of 1946,
the Marine Corps appointed a Special Board to reconcile amphibious operations with nuclear weapons. The “vertical
envelopment” concept developed by the Board entailed flying forces in via helicopter from well-dispersed carriers.
These forces would land behind initial beach defenses in order to prevent nuclear strikes, then close with the enemy
and open the beaches for reinforcements and heavy equipment, which would be brought in via landing craft and large
seaplanes. Demonstrating an impressive amount of foresight, the Board developed the concept even though such
troop-carrying helicopters and seaplanes did not yet even exist (Millett, 1991: 451–454).
Service in the Korean War marked the Corps’ last amphibious assault and the Corps’ transition to a “force in
readiness” thereafter. In Vietnam, the small percentage of Marines that served in Combined Action Platoons (CAPs)
have, in retrospect, been heralded as another example of the Corps’ ability to adapt, especially in comparison to the
Army’s search-and-destroy tactics and bombing strategies (Krepinevich, 1986: 172–177; Dell and Querubin, 2018).
The stories the organization tells its members further reflect this openness to ideas and change. Krulak (1984)
identifies six traits of Marines: thinkers, innovators, improvisers, penny pinchers, brothers, and fighters. The first
four imply a degree of adaptability, resourcefulness, and openness to ideas that manifested themselves as the Marine
Corps, driven by the failures of (and inability to adapt soon enough in) Vietnam, moved toward a more adaptive and
11 Brigadier General Commandant C. Heywood to Admiral G. Dewey, November 22, 1900, General Board File 408, RG 80.
Organizational perspectives on the maneuver warfare movement 147
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
flexible warfighting philosophy. It was not until these failures and the resulting maneuver warfare movement that
adaptiveness was explicitly incorporated into the organization’s official documents and way of thinking and fighting.
This movement evolved in ways quite similar to other “hot groups” and had characteristics similar to March’s
outliers.
3. The case of maneuver warfare as a hot group and the flaring of outliers in USMC
history
An interesting affinity between the maneuver warfare movement and March’s perspectives is the acceptance and
embrace of uncertainty and ambiguity. An important theme in March’s work since at least March (1978) was to
understand, accommodate, and embrace ambiguity (and other limitations to human rationality), rather than repress
it or assume it away as many theoretical models and perspectives do. Like March used ambiguity to build fruitful
concepts and insights around organizational learning, intelligence, risk taking, and organizational identity, so did the
Marines come to embrace, rather than repress, the presence of uncertainty and ambiguity, especially in the maneuver
warfare movement and their conception of warfare. This stood in marked contrast to the more static (i.e. attritionist)
conception it replaced.
The development of the maneuver warfare philosophy in the Marine Corps, which eventually resulted in a com-
plete organizational transformation, grew out of the failures of Vietnam. Misguided body count strategies and fluid
battles that revealed the limitations of centralized decision-making and Marine Corps doctrine prompted many
returning officers, relatively junior in rank at the time, to demand change (Wyly, 1993). For example, in reflecting
back on his time as a second lieutenant during the 1960s when Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara strengthened
centralized decision-making routines by implementing systems engineering techniques (themselves examples of ex-
ploitation of the status quo) to manage the war in Vietnam, Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, USMC (ret.), an
early advocate of maneuver warfare who later became the first president of Marine Corps University, identified the
need to break from these established routines of attrition warfare: “We took those systems, which had good if not
great utility in the acquisition of weapon systems, to the battlefield, where they were totally inappropriate. The com-
puters in Saigon said we were winning the war, while out there in the rice paddies we knew damn well we weren’t
winning the war” (NOVA, 2004). Furthermore, even though the Marine Corps’ use of CAPs in Vietnam was retro-
actively lauded, only a very small percentage of the total number of Marines were actually employed in this capacity
(Krepinevich, 1986: 174), meaning a great many had experienced the limitations and failures of centralized attrition
warfare firsthand.
These young officers gradually coalesced around the strategic leadership of General Al Gray, who, knowing
he faced a lot of resistance, ignored the “Marine Corps way” of doing things and sheltered the maneuver warfare
movement from established doctrinal processes and the top of the organization, which he felt would have crushed
it.
12
The organization placed a new emphasis on fighting “smart,” which stood in marked contrast not only to recent
operations in Vietnam, but also to Marine Corps operations made famous (and that made the Marine Corps famous)
in the Pacific during World War II, where the Corps prioritized speed when conducting an amphibious assault even if
it meant pushing through the enemy’s strength.
In contrast to the then-pervasive emphasis on body counts and centralized decision making, maneuver warfare is
“a warfighting philosophy that seeks to shatter the enemy’s cohesion through a series of rapid, violent, and unexpect-
ed actions which create a turbulent and rapidly deteriorating situation with which he cannot cope” (USMC, 1989:
59). As such, maneuver has a temporal as well as a spatial element and is based more on defeating the enemy psycho-
logically than is the more firepower-attrition based approach, which focuses more on the enemy’s physical destruc-
tion (Wilson, 1981), as was the case in Vietnam. In order to generate the requisite operational tempo and cope with
the uncertainty and chaos of combat, decision making must be decentralized and must not take place at headquarters
or back in Washington, DC. Decentralized decision making requires the use of mission-type orders, or assigning a
subordinate a mission but leaving “the manner of accomplishing the mission to the subordinate, thereby allowing
him the freedom and establishing the duty to take whatever steps he deems necessary based on the situation”
(USMC, 1989: 70). Rather than rely on a centralized chain of command to make decisions, maneuver warfare
12 Leaders like Gray are often necessary to support and protect hot groups and avoid the micromanagement that typically
undoes them (Lipman-Blumen and Leavitt, 1999a: 69).
148 M. Augier and S. F. X. Barrett
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
philosophy trusts that “a competent subordinate commander who is at the point of decision will naturally have a
better appreciation for the true situation than a senior some distance removed” (USMC, 1989: 62), thus increasing
the pace at which units can adapt to changes in the operating environment.
To capture some of the dynamics of the institutional and organizational change that enabled maneuver warfare to
emerge, we focus on five larger organizational and leadership elements that helped to cultivate, nourish, and enable
the movement. The first element is a sense of urgency as a source of change. The second is the importance of informal
mechanisms as opposed to bureaucratized structure. The third is attracting and enabling outlier thinkers through a
bottom-up approach, while the fourth is a belief that people and ideas matter more than rank and titles. A final
element is the importance of critical thinking and broadening minds. Each contributed in its own way, resulting in
change that was evolutionary and organic but guided by a bit of design. The movement was assisted by converts at
the grassroots level and fresh inputs from non-Marines, which generated a broad base of enthusiasm that enabled the
maneuver warfare philosophy to become embedded in Marine Corps fighting, thinking, and education. Combining
elements of March’s interest in the flaring of innovative thinkers and novelty and Leavitt’s “hot groups” argument,
we can perhaps better understand some of the mechanisms underlying and enabling the flaring of the maneuver
warfare movement in the Marine Corps.
3.1 Sense of urgency
The quest for change in the Marine Corps was driven not only by the failures of Vietnam, but also by a host of geo-
strategic, domestic, and bureaucratic challenges, including a rising terrorist threat, an inflation-ravaged economy,
and the transition to the All-Volunteer Force (Millett, 1991: 612–613). Most importantly, military thinkers were
(again) beginning to question the future of the Marine Corps and the need for an amphibious capability, this time
vis-a`-vis a burgeoning Soviet threat in the Nuclear Age (e.g. Binkin and Record, 1976). The Marine Corps was in
crisis.
During the Cold War, the Marine Corps was likely to be called upon to conduct amphibious operations or fight
the Soviets and would thus likely be outnumbered in either instance. As a result, the Marine Corps needed to place
an emphasis on fighting “smart,” or avoiding enemy strengths and focusing on enemy weakness to reduce casualties
and yield decisive results (USMC, 1989: 74). Moreover, in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) exercises
during the mid-1970s, which served as a proving ground to European theater commanders, Marine ground combat
elements were consistently assigned only lesser roles due to a lack of mobility and firepower, oftentimes bypassed by
more mobile opposing forces, or simply isolated, and ultimately contributed little to these exercises beyond serving
as a symbol of US strategic deterrence (MAGTF Instructional Group, 2015;Turley, 2017: 12). Critics also ques-
tioned the caliber of the Marine officer. For example, in the February 1978 issue of Marine Corps Gazette, Lind and
Record wrote a critique of Marine officers, observing a lack of new tactical or operational concepts introduced there-
in, which they attributed to an inadequate knowledge of theory and history and a promotion system that did not em-
phasize theoretical ability. Much like Lipman-Blumen and Leavitt (1999a,b) identify the propensity for crises to lead
to the formation of hot groups and a culture of optimistic urgency played a role in the flaring of intellectual outliers
at RAND (Augier et al., 2015), these factors resulted in a real desire among the junior and midgrade officer corps,
who had confronted the limitations of Marine Corps tactics, hardware, and doctrine firsthand, to demand change.
13
One such officer was Colonel Michael Wyly, USMC (ret.), who proved instrumental in introducing maneuver
warfare philosophy in a formal educational setting in the Marine Corps for the first time. As a lieutenant colonel,
Wyly was named Head of Tactics Instruction at Amphibious Warfare School (AWS), a career course for captains, for
the 1979–1980 school year. Colonel Wyly had previously served two tours in Vietnam. When he returned from these
tours, he felt he had not tried hard enough to explain the limitations of current tactics and strategy, which he had
experienced firsthand, to senior officers (Wyly, personal conversation). With war against the Soviets seemingly on
the horizon, he committed himself to trying harder to do the right thing so that more people did not continue to die
due to a lack of effort on his part. Embodying the hot group hallmark of intensely passionate, “captivated” members
(Lipman-Blumen and Leavitt, 1999a: 66), Wyly spent his evenings in the library at Marine Corps Base Quantico. So
13 Similarly, driven in part by a lack of intellectual respect for business schools in academia, GSIA became part of the cut-
ting edge leading their transformation, which subsequently upgraded their intellectual prowess and status (Simon,
1991).
Organizational perspectives on the maneuver warfare movement 149
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
frequent were his visits, the librarians gave him his own key so he could study after hours. Wyly enrolled in graduate
studies at George Washington University to whet his appetite for professional study, and he drew on archival mater-
ial at the Marine Corps Historical Center and interviewed foreign officers to support his research. Wyly recalls,
“I found my intellectual curiosity on fire. I was inspired” (Wyly, 2019). His boss, then Major General Bernard
Trainor, provided Wyly with top cover protection from institutional mechanisms that could derail his effort, turning
him loose to redesign the curriculum, unencumbered by current doctrine.
Of course, organizational changes rarely take place in a vacuum and are often nudged along by larger trends.
Like Leavitt’s story about GSIA as a hot group being nested within the larger context of the era of reform in business
education (and GSIA being a poster child of the kind of change that the larger movement sought, as well as being the
institutional home for important new work in organization studies and other fields), the story of change in the
Marine Corps was nested within a larger (and complementary) military reform debate. This arose particularly from
Vietnam and from what some feared was runaway Cold War military spending.
According to Senator Gary Hart and Bill Lind, military reform was “an effort to make all our defense policies
and practices—from the infantry squad through the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Congress—serve the
purpose of winning in combat” (Hart and Lind, 1986: 17). This reform debate focused on doctrine, procurement,
and force structure and emphasized the distinction between a more effective defense and a more expensive defense.
As superiority in resources against the Soviets seemed impossible, the US military needed to identify “how to fight
outnumbered and win” (Lind, 1980), necessitating an emphasis on fighting smarter than the enemy and on the
importance of people. Developing an officer corps that could make the right choices and that was not inclined to con-
formity was thus also deemed a priority (Oseth, 1984: 49–52).
Lind, an outspoken legislative aide first to Senator Robert Taft, Jr. and later Senator Hart, as well as an author
and military historian, recognized the need for the Marine Corps and Department of Defense writ large to change its
routines and ways of thinking. He leveraged his placement on Capitol Hill and access to key lawmakers to help spur
the movement. He also joined forces with other reformers, most notably retired Air Force colonel, fighter pilot, and
influential military theorist, John Boyd, to form the intellectual engine of the reform movement. Boyd began present-
ing his now famous “Patterns of Conflict” lecture to a generation of Pentagon reformers. Thus, the movement for re-
form and change was not unique to the Marine Corps but was embedded in larger movements for reform at the time,
and the people and ideas overlapped.
14
The core group of Marine officers striving for change also directly sought
the assistance of many of these like-minded outsider outliers/reformers to inform their own efforts, leading to the cre-
ation of a rather eclectic mix of reform-minded politicians, military theorists, staffers, and officers from other services
that joined forces with the Marine maneuverists to identify solutions to what had failed in Vietnam and in the larger
defense establishment. These Marine maneuverists, themselves outliers, remained open to the ideas of other out-
siders, including those who had never experienced combat. This sense of urgency, interacting with a mix of diverse,
interdisciplinary thinkers spurred by crisis, provided the initial shock necessary to break the Marine Corps from rou-
tines that were no longer effective on the battlefield.
3.2 The importance of informal mechanisms
Many of the mechanisms that helped enable the maneuver warfare movement were informal, and while some were
the product of more design than others, they certainly were not bureaucratized. Rather, enthusiastic individuals eager
to passionately debate their ideas organically coalesced into groups as they searched for solutions to vexing problems.
These groups proved far more influential than their size or the rank of their members might have initially
suggested.
15
14 This was also the case in GSIA’s early days. For instance, Herb Simon, who was key to the intellectual efforts at GSIA,
and Lee Bach, an early dean, were both involved in the Ford Foundation’s various committees concerning both improv-
ing business education and helping facilitate the integration of the behavioral social sciences. The Ford Foundation
also sponsored early intellectual work at GSIA (e.g. around organizations and the behavioral theory of the firm).
15 March would often recollect the importance of informal discussions and groups at GSIA, from semi-formal seminars
(which led to interesting but often heated debates and discussions), to he and Richard Cyert (often joined by students)
discussing many of the ideas leading to the behavioral theory of the firm, in the basement of GSIA and even at the
baseball park.
150 M. Augier and S. F. X. Barrett
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
In his position as Head of Tactics Instruction, Colonel Wyly introduced a new generation of officers to the maneu-
ver warfare philosophy and facilitated ways for students to self-select into additional forms of study. As he redesigned
the curriculum at AWS, Wyly resolved to deemphasize instruction in manuals and doctrine, which he felt became
ends in themselves. Instead, he began incorporating historical battle studies and exercises that required students to
make decisions, while also eliminating the prescribed solutions that instructors had previously relied on during
these exercises. He even deviated from established norms and curricula by taking his students to the field for tactical
exercises without troops (Damian, 2008: 73–78; Wyly, 2019).
Wyly invited Lind down during a week-long war game between the Marine captains at AWS to show him that the
Marine Corps was in fact changing how it was teaching tactics—something Lind had been pushing for on the Hill, as
well as in many military professional journals. Rather than instinctively resisting the criticisms of an outsider, Wyly
welcomed this outside thought, which helped feed the movement. During the war game, Lind helped Wyly get
in touch with John Boyd, whom Wyly invited down to Quantico to give his “Patterns of Conflict” lecture. The con-
versation sparked by this lecture led to the creation of an afterhours discussion group that formed part of the initial
nucleus of the maneuver warfare movement. Members passionately debated how best to fight in future wars (Wyly,
personal conversation), a fixation similar to the “temporarily monopolizing” tasks of hot groups that captivate
“every heart and mind to the exclusion of almost everything” (Lipman-Blumen and Leavitt, 1999a: 66).
Two of Wyly’s students, GI Wilson and Bill Woods, received orders to 2nd Marine Division at Camp Lejeune,
NC and wanted to continue their studies there. They started their own study group despite admittedly not really
knowing what they were doing. Woods recalls, “When you don’t know where to start, you just start” (Woods, per-
sonal conversation). The group held a handful of meetings before General Al Gray (then a Major General) checked
in as the Commanding General. Wyly knew that General Gray had already met Boyd and Lind on multiple occasions
and encouraged Woods and Wilson to meet him. Woods and Wilson met with General Gray to discuss what they
had been working on. General Gray subsequently declared their study group the 2nd Marine Division Maneuver
Warfare Board and maneuver warfare the official doctrine (and way of thinking) for the division. General Gray later
met with Colonel Wyly, leading Gray to make regular visits to speak to the students at AWS. This created a sense
of momentum behind the maneuver warfare movement such that students realized they had better learn it (Wyly,
personal conversation; Woods, personal conversation).
Both this group at Camp Lejeune, as well as the group that formed earlier at Quantico, were self-initiated, rela-
tively small, and driven by a particular task—the study of maneuver warfare and winning future wars. Lieutenant
General Trainor did not wait for formal curriculum reviews to change the curriculum at AWS, and the initial meeting
between Gray, Wilson, and Woods also certainly did not follow proper protocol. Rather, Trainor and Gray chal-
lenged and empowered their Marines and provided them the freedom to act and implement changes within the
bounds of their commander’s intent. This was indicative of the decidedly bottom-up approach by which the maneu-
ver warfare movement won grassroots converts.
16
These informal mechanisms also highlight how organizations
might facilitate organic flaring guided by a bit of design (in this case, a formal schoolhouse), an important theme
concerning March’s outliers and the formation of Leavitt’s hot groups, as well as how these individuals and groups
can have an outsized impact on organization’s ability to adapt and change.
17
3.3 Attracting and enabling innovative thinking through a bottom-up approach
Many of the ideas of the maneuver warfare movement were conceived, socialized, tested, and implemented from the
bottom up as opposed to by fiat from the top down. Even key leaders, like General Gray, who supported the move-
ment exhibited a decidedly bottom up mentality and leadership style. Gray, for example, had a reputation for being
out of his office spending time with his Marines (e.g. Otte, 2015: 13, 47–48). This generated enthusiasm for
16 Not all of these activities lasted (e.g. the Maneuver Warfare Board), but they still illustrate the kind of experimentation
with ideas in organizations that March argued is essential for adaptiveness (March, 1991).
17 RAND, for example, facilitated chance encounters that mixed disparate talents through the architectural design of their
buildings and an organizational design that was multidisciplinary and heterogeneous by nature (Augier et al., 2015).
Lipman-Blumen and Leavitt (1999a: 71) note, “If you want an organization chart, make it look more like a map of Boston
than a neat pyramid. Specifying ‘proper channels’ slows communication flows and impedes innovation ...
Routinization is a systemic poison for hot groups. It kills both their freedom and their fight.”
Organizational perspectives on the maneuver warfare movement 151
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
the movement and enabled it to become embedded more broadly and deeply in the organization and withstand the
natural inclination of bureaucracy to stamp out change.
Before arriving at 2nd Marine Division, General Gray had already adopted maneuver thinking and had previously
begun implementing and testing maneuver principles first on the battlefields of Vietnam and then while
Commanding General of 4th Marine Amphibious Brigade (MAB) in the mid- to late-1970s. Despite senior Marine
leadership remaining skeptical, under his leadership, 4th MAB embraced mission-type orders over conventional war-
fare doctrine during NATO exercises, and 4th MAB’s operational performances consistently received high marks
from the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and European allies (Turley, 2017: 12–15). This not only won him con-
verts at the grassroots level within his own command, but he could also explain away his lower units’ straying from
conventional tactics as junior officers not knowing any better (Wilson, personal conversation). Gray thus served as
the movement’s senior patron who supported and protected maneuver warfare from meddling while also testing it at
some of the most strenuous levels possible short of actual combat. Gray made his Marines part of the learning and
development process, and as a result they felt “engaged in an important, even vital, personally stretching, ennobling
mission” and derived meaning from their work (Lipman-Blumen and Leavitt, 1999a: 66).
18
As part of his bottom-up approach to implementing maneuver warfare, Gray nurtured an open and collaborative
environment that broke down traditional notions of hierarchy, which he deemed essential to critical and creative
thinking. A tireless operational critic, General Gray insisted on holding after action reviews (AARs) following war
games and field or command post exercises. Discussions took place without rank insignia being visible, thus encour-
aging open dialogue and emphasizing the merit of ideas over rank (Augier and Guo, 2016: 279; Wilson, personal
conversation). Maneuver warfare required thinking at all levels, so Gray was always more concerned about why a
Marine did what he did (and what he thought) than what he did (MAGTF Instructional Group, 2015).
Gray challenged his Marines to make decisions in exercises that emphasized “free play” in lieu of following
scripted scenarios. In doing so, his Marines discovered the merits of the maneuver philosophy first-hand, creating dis-
ciples (Gray, personal conversation). General Gray leveraged his command positions to adopt and implement maneu-
ver warfare in increasingly larger units, which he commanded for unusually long periods of time. This fostered a
broad-based, bottom-up change that ultimately enabled him to bureaucratically outmaneuver his maneuver warfare
opponents.
19
Being a hot group in a cold organization, however, can be difficult. Organizations (and people in them) often
have bureaucratic layers that want to repeat actions that have led to success in the past, even at the expense of sus-
taining the experimentation and novelty that hot groups pursue. Thus, they are inclined to promote those perceived
as successful and who feel their abilities are most relevant to organizational outcomes (Levinthal and March, 1993).
The Marine Corps’ adoption of maneuver warfare was far from a foregone conclusion, and it took people who were
devoted to the cause, not their careers. Colonel Wyly was later fired from his position at AWS and reassigned to the
Pentagon after Lieutenant General Trainor was transferred to a new position and was replaced by an attrition-
minded successor (Wyly, personal conversation). General Gray himself was anything but a member of the Marine
Corps establishment and was a surprise selection to become the 29th Commandant, having already submitted his re-
tirement papers 4 months earlier.
20
Woods, Wyly, and Wilson demonstrated how the bottom-up approach enhanced
Marines’ commitment to, and identification with, the organization and engendered an obligation to serve the
18 March was also a big proponent of pursuing meaning and identities rather than consequences and incentives. He
often noted the almost “missionary zeal” at GSIA as they were trying to build a better behavioral social science (and
study firms and organizations in that process, too).
19 Even after he became Commandant of the Marine Corps and tasked John Schmitt, then just a junior captain, with writ-
ing FMFM 1, Warfighting to institutionalize maneuver warfare as the way of thinking and fighting in the Marine Corps,
Gray ensured the publication would not be staffed in order to avoid diluting its value. He told Schmitt that the only
person Schmitt had to satisfy was him. He also ensured the publication would bear no author and would thus be
effectively written by the organization, spawning a sense of ownership and thus making it more difficult to reverse
course. Remaining true to his principles, he provided Schmitt with his intent, oftentimes in the form of parables, and did
not dictate any part of the publication (MAGTF Instructional Group, 2015). To this day, this document remains core to
the organization’s thinking.
20 Turley (2017: 228–236) details the selection process for the 29th Commandant, which did not include Gray as an initial
candidate, as well as multiple objections to Gray’s selection.
152 M. Augier and S. F. X. Barrett
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
organization and the people in it—even at great personal sacrifice. These Marines embodied a warrior’s version of
March’s (2003: 205–206) conception of the scholar’s quest, “one based not on anticipations of consequences but on
attempts to fulfill the obligations of personal and social identities and senses of self.”
3.4 Focusing on people and ideas
Led by General Gray, the maneuver warfare movement valued people and ideas more than ranks and titles. As such,
the movement was assisted, in particular, by inputs from many non-Marines—outside outliers. Bill Lind, for ex-
ample, proved to be a key contributor to the debate concerning, and the conceptual development of, maneuver war-
fare. Well-meaning, well-versed in the history of warfare, and a frequent contributor to the Gazette, he at times came
across as arrogant or a crank, leading some (especially senior) Marines to try to marginalize him. Gray, however,
was always willing (and eager) to speak with anyone who had ideas and wanted to help (Gray, personal conversa-
tion). Inviting outsiders to contribute helped the Marine Corps avoid becoming a closed system and fostered innova-
tive thought. Gray’s emphasis on ideas and de-emphasis of rank is also in keeping with Leavitt’s hot group
discussion, as well as March’s own experiences at GSIA, where he often noted that ideas, not titles, mattered.
21
After hours maneuver warfare discussion groups at Camp Pendleton, inspired by those at Lejeune, insisted
that participants, regardless of rank, refer to one another as “Sir,” thus placing everyone on the same level and an
overriding emphasis on the merit of ideas (Ezerzer, 2016). The conceptual debates in the Gazette were not inhibited
by a deference to rank either. Instead, the Gazette provided a public forum in which the merits of maneuver warfare
were debated by both insiders and outsiders. These debates began in the late 1970s and early 1980s and developed
the intellectual foundation for—and the eventual organizational embrace of—maneuver warfare. A longitudinal look
at Gazette articles discussing maneuver warfare reveals a very clear evolution in the clarity of thought that resulted
from these debates and highlights the useful role critics can play in the change process.
22
Following Lind’s February 1978 article in the Gazette, subsequent articles discussing maneuver warfare, including
one of Lind’s own, initially seemed to blur the distinction between maneuver warfare as a philosophy and the related
mobility and mechanized capabilities necessary to fight like a maneuverist (Lind, 1978;Miller, 1978;Miller, 1979a).
In October 1979, Miller, a junior officer, authored the first part of a formative two-part series in the Gazette titled
“Winning Through Maneuver.” Miller (1979b) cited historical examples of outnumbered forces winning in battle by
focusing their strength on the enemy’s weakness and using surprise to their advantage. Key to such a concept is
retaining the initiative via decentralized control.
23
Maneuver warfare critics also joined the debate in the Gazette.Batcheller (1982: 22) argued that the “cookbook
recipes” dismissed by the maneuverists were in many instances required because a sufficient level of competence
cannot be assumed to exist down to the small unit level. He went on to characterize maneuver warfare as
a “freewheeling approach” that focused too much on the Corps’ tactical mobility—which could lead to more
21 For example, Leavitt and Lipman-Blumen (1995) explain, “Members of hot groups ... feel that their team and each indi-
vidual member is something special. Even in hot groups composed of very dissimilar personalities, members respect
and trust one another because they see themselves as highly capable people dedicated to an impossible task.
Communication is typically wide open - up, down, and across the group. Members treat one another with casual re-
spect and focus on colleagues’ contributions to the task at hand, not on title, rank or status.” Additionally, it is worth
noting that several of the original chapters in the first edition of Behavioral Theory of the Firm were written by or with
students. A culture of respect for ideas instead of titles was also an important dynamic at RAND.
22 Lipman-Blumen and Leavitt (1999a: 65) note that hot groups members are not conformists prone to groupthink, but ra-
ther “thrive on outspoken debate and disagreement.”
23 Given the emphasis on maintaining a high tempo of operations and his involvement as a leader of the defense reform
and maneuver warfare debate, it is no surprise that the influence of John Boyd began to surface in the Gazette
debates concerning maneuver warfare. Lind (1980: 55), for example, noted that maneuver warfare, which “is more psy-
chological than physical,” was “an overall concept or ‘style’ of warfare” whose opposite was the firepower-attrition
style. Furthermore, maneuver was not simply movement, but rather “relational movement” and “moving and acting
consistently more rapidly than the opponent” (Lind, 1980: 56). Lind referenced Boyd’s observation-decision-action cycle
and argued that the victor would be the one who could consistently cycle more quickly than his opponent, which
caused the opponent to feel that he had lost control of the situation. Similarly, Trainor (1980) observed that initiative is
the basic principle of operations required to avoid attrition.
Organizational perspectives on the maneuver warfare movement 153
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
mechanization that could detract from the Corps’ strategic mobility—and not enough on destroying the enemy’s
(Batcheller, 1982: 22). Voigt (1982) argued that maneuver warfare did not give enemy commanders enough credit.
After all, “it should not be assumed that enemy commanders will lose control of the situation and their forces disinte-
grate when faced with rapidly changing situations” while Marine commanders somehow remain unaffected (Voigt,
1982: 20). Mission-type orders that relaxed command and control were not only deemed inappropriate, but if man-
euver warfare was based on the assumption of an enemy superior in numbers and materiel, the philosophy could not
also assume there would be weak points to exploit.
The debates in the Gazette and elsewhere were indicative of a movement focused on helping Marines learn how
to think better about complex issues (not what to think) and reinforcing the importance of learning as a lifetime ac-
tivity. The embrace of outside sources and deviant thinkers like Lind and Boyd, as evidenced in the Gazette and in
lectures at Quantico, helped similarly broaden minds.
24
The institution and its leaders provided media, such as a pro-
fessional journal, AARs, and study groups, to facilitate the exchange and sharpening of ideas, based on the premise
that it was the ideas that mattered more so than the rank of the individuals who held them. This emphasis on critical
thinking drove an intellectual renaissance that permeated the organization.
3.5 Critical thinking and broadening minds
General Gray sought to combat the anti-intellectual current in the Marine Corps at the time by making reading and
serious self-study an expectation. Gray wanted to ensure his Marines were as mentally ready to fight as they were
physically. Similar to the impetus for Colonel Wyly’s redesign of the curriculum at AWS, Gray felt education required
more than memorizing facts or becoming academic historians.
25
Rather, professional military education under
Gray’s leadership was intended to serve as a vehicle for sharpening judgment and war-fighting capabilities (Turley,
2017: 270), both operationally on the battlefield and organizationally in a time of crisis: “Through education we can
equip ourselves to make sound military judgments even in chaotic and uncertain situations. The ability to make clear
and swift judgments, amidst chaos, is what sets the warrior apart intellectually. Though practice in the field and in
wargames is important to improving military judgment, its development remains anchored to education about
war.”
26
This emphasis on education was reiterated in FMFM 1, which emphasized every Marine’s responsibility to
study the profession of arms on his or her own, putting self-study on par with physical training (USMC, 1989: 51).
General Gray facilitated after working hours debates that generated enthusiasm by placing an equal value on the
ideas of more junior officers (Ezerzer, 2016). He leveraged command post and field exercises to evaluate the effect-
iveness of his guidance, as well as of his units as they explored the concept of maneuver warfare. He eventually incor-
porated computer simulators into these war games, consolidated a packet of readings on maneuver warfare for his
Marines to read,
27
and leveraged the Maneuver Warfare Board to serve as a professional study group (Turley, 2017:
126–127, 131). He challenged all of his Marines to think, for maneuver warfare depended on the ability to think
faster than the enemy at all levels. In doing so, Gray empowered his Marines to conduct “small experiments with
wild ideas, while retaining the possibility of diffusing those that prove to be good ones” (March, 2006: 210) and fun-
damentally changed his Marines’ perception of risk by emphasizing the need to learn from failure and eschewing a
“zero defect” mentality in order to recalibrate the balance between exploitation and exploration. Much like Charles
Hitch at RAND and Lee Bach at GSIA, Gray fostered an environment in which his Marines could think outside the
box and was prepared to protect them and their continued hard work.
24 Attracting deviant thinkers and intellectual refugees who did not fit into a traditional disciplinary silo in the academic
establishment was also crucial to RAND’s success (Augier et al., 2015). March also notes the importance of slowly
socializing new members of an organization to the established norms and a moderate degree of turnover to improving
organizational and average knowledge over time (March, 1991).
25 Commandant of the Marine Corps to Command General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, "Training and
Education," October 10, 1988, located in the Alfred M. Gray Collection, Box List Part 2, Box 6, Folder 12, Brigadier
General Edwin H. Simmons Center for Marine Corps History, Quantico, VA.
26 Book on Books, “Draft Copy” (Quantico, VA: Marine Corps University), Alfred M. Gray Collection, Box List Part 2, Box 5,
Folder 9, Brigadier General Edwin H. Simmons Center for Marine Corps History, Quantico, VA. The quote is from
Section 1, which was authored by Colonel Mike Wyly.
27 See the Alfred M. Gray Collection, Box List Part 2, Box 39, Folder 13, Brigadier General Edwin H. Simmons Center for
Marine Corps History Quantico, VA for the packet of readings.
154 M. Augier and S. F. X. Barrett
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
As Commandant, General Gray ordered his Marines to read and published a manual, Book on Books, to intro-
duce and explain the professional reading program he institutionalized as the Commandant’s Reading List, helping
to improve the organization’s ability to learn and continuing the process of learning to learn, which is so valuable for
organizational adaptation (Leavitt and March, 1988).
28
Gray institutionalized the intellectual renaissance undergird-
ing maneuver warfare through a variety of means, including by revising various curricula, publishing the aforemen-
tioned reading list for all Marines, increasing educational opportunities for enlisted Marines, and founding Marine
Corps University to serve as an umbrella under which all educational programs in the Marine Corps would fall. First
by generating the necessary enthusiasm, and then by challenging his Marines and honing their ability to think broadly
and critically, Gray set the conditions to challenge the status quo while also protecting the hot group enough for it to
take off.
4. Cooling
Though not embraced by all, there can be no doubt that the maneuver warfare movement was indeed quite success-
ful. For example, the quick victory on the battlefield in Operation DESERT STORM has been credited by many
to maneuver warfare (e.g. Romm, 1991;Wilson, 1991). As we know from March (and others) that successful and
innovative movements in organizations usually do not last, it is relevant now to ask about the downsides of this in-
novative movement in the USMC. How did it cool, and how can Marines learn from this period of innovativeness
and try to buffer exploration in the organization? While the full answer would warrant (at least) another paper-
length exploration, let us briefly mention some elements March would have undoubtedly seen as signs of “decline,”
while also pointing to some further conceptual parallels between March and the USMC that one could study.
4.1 Bureaucratization, growth, and endurance
As organizations age and grow, March and others have noted how they usually come to value predictability and
reliability at the expense of innovativeness, outlier-ness, and variety. Leavitt (1996) also notes that hot groups tend
to cool; it is difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the same heat, energy, vigor, and excitement.
29
In some ways,
one might expect this feature to be stronger in military organizations than in business ones because they cannot go
out of business. In contrast to the maneuverist mindset, attritionists and bureaucratic managers in these organizations
often attempt to create a false sense of certainty by creating processes, check lists, policies, and procedures that slow
communication and thus the unit’s ability to respond immediately and effectively (Gray and Otte, 2006: 80,
94, 103). Such obstacles typically multiply as organizations age, further reducing chances for novelty to emerge
and survive. That the Department of Defense has oftentimes become its own worst enemy and values processes at the
expense of effectiveness is far from a unique insight. Reflecting on his time as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates
(2014: 116) writes, “The very size and structure of the department assured ponderousness, if not paralysis, because
so many different organizations had to be involved in even the smallest decisions. The idea of speed and agility to
support current combat operations was totally foreign to the building.”
Another factor contributing to bureaucratization is sheer growth, especially in the Flag Officer (FO) and General
Officer (GO) ranks. In World War II, there were only twice as many GO/FOs as there are today even though there
were 10 times as many active duty troops (McCarthy, 2017: 77). Each general has his own staff, leading to a “brass
creep” (e.g. Gansler and Lucyshyn, 2014: vii–viii) across the force, or a growth in the “administrative class” that
often tends to view their roles in organizations as jobs rather than vocations.
30
For example, military and civilian
positions at geographic combatant commands increased by about 50% from fiscal years 2001 through 2012
28 The reading list, established and institutionalized in 1989, was intended to help instill 5000-year-old minds in 30-year-old
bodies and to cultivate an ability to learn from the past in order to better understand and anticipate the future—a point
March (1999) also made. Long time perspectives of the past can also help stimulate imaginations for the future, as it
helps people understand the historical processes of which they are part (March 1999: 316).
29 Lipman-Blumen and Leavitt (1999a: 65) note, “all of our examples were relatively short-lived, yet each is remembered
nostalgically and in considerable detail by its participants.”
30 The growth in the administrative class at RAND has also been identified as one of the seeds of decline at RAND as
these administrators neither pursued the long-term interest of the organization nor the development of science and
ideas (Augier et al., 2015: 1152).
Organizational perspectives on the maneuver warfare movement 155
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
(U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2013), and the tooth-to-tail ratio (combat vs. noncombat elements)
in Army deployments decreased 5% from 1991 to 2005 (McCarthy, n. d.: 80). Although the Marine Corps has the
lowest percentage of officers among the services, the percentage of commissioned Marine officers as a percentage of
end-strength increased 38% from 1968 to 2015 (McCarthy, 2017). As a result, many more layers (and people who
can say “no”) have been added between the warfighter or action officer and the ultimate decision maker.
With more people to manage, more rules and routines are needed. Officers, especially, become so bogged down
with administrative and training requirements that they are less able or likely to serve as an advocate for ideas work-
ing their way up from the bottom. Sometimes, they even opt to evade these requirements entirely (and arguably, at
times, out of necessity) by “lying” to themselves and the institution (Wong and Gerras, 2015). With less time to get
to know the members of their unit, commanders are less able to build a broad base of support and become prone
to leading by fiat and implementing even more rules.
31
These side effects of growth breed a culture of compliance
(instead of exploration) that saps the enthusiasm necessary for any kind of novelty or hot groups to flourish.
4.2 Competence, confidence, and careerism
Confidence and competence were also themes March often talked about when discussing organizational issues.
Many will recall him musing that “people and organizations often gain confidence before they gain competence,”
often noting its possibly destructive implications for novelty and hot groups in organizations. While Leavitt (1996)
notes that self-confidence was a key element in igniting the hot group at GSIA, March and others have warned that
confidence, sometimes resulting from previous success, can lead to less risk-taking and less exploration in general
(March, 1991;Kahneman and Lovallo, 1993). At RAND, this kind of competency trap manifested itself, for in-
stance, in the wide adoption of systems analysis as the dominant analytical framework (Kahn and Mann, 1957;
Marshall, 1991). While systems analysis was useful as a method for understanding and analyzing relatively well-
structured problems, it was not suited for more ill-structured ones. Thus, applying systems analysis to situations
under ambiguity and uncertainty soon led to a narrowing of the mind and a trained incapacity for strategic thinking
(Marshall, 1991), because the ability to understand the world cannot be reduced to what fits certain tools.
Similarly, the DoD oftentimes puts an undue amount of faith in technology at the expense of understanding the
nature of war. As a result, war games have devolved into set piece, “proofs-of-concept” for technology. In reflecting
back on the Millennium Challenge 2002 war game exercise in which he served as the “enemy” force commander,
Lieutenant General Van Riper, observes, “They want to apply the technology without the brainpower ... My experi-
ence has been that those who focus on the technology, the science, tend towards sloganeering” (NOVA, 2004). Van
Riper used unconventional tactics to sink 16 American ships and communicate with his subordinate commanders in
a manner that flummoxed the American military’s ability to collect intelligence. For the USMC in particular, the cost
and acquisitions timeline of their amphibious ship investments, and the institution’s desire to differentiate itself,
are so great that the USMC is prone to exploiting its extant Amphibious Readiness Group/Marine Expeditionary
Unit construct rather than exploring new operational concepts.
A final issue that has evolved as a barrier to reigniting the hot group mentality in the USMC is the issue of
careerism. As even the DoD’s most senior officers have largely escaped accountability for their performance on the
battlefield in recent conflicts (e.g. Ricks, 2013;Gates, 2014), the officer corps’ ability to abide by policies and rules
has come to fill part of the void as a means of evaluation. This fosters a “zero defect” mentality that inhibits any
experimentation, as well as the individual and the organization’s ability to learn, because people become prone to
cover up mistakes (Inspector General, 2010).
32
The resulting risk aversion from this emphasis on rules and processes
is reinforced by a personnel management system that largely treats individual officers as interchangeable cogs in a
machine and rewards those that abide by the “cookie cutter” career path (e.g. Vandergriff, 2002;Kane, 2013),
31 For example, the current Commanding General of 2nd Marine Division recently issued a policy letter decrying the erod-
ing discipline within the division and instituting a “daily routine,” which includes a 0530 reveille, mandatory formations,
and specific times set aside for cleaning and hygiene. The policy letter was greeted with a significant amount of resist-
ance and accusations of micromanagement (Seck, 2019).
32 Lind (1984: 97) previously warned that the system, rather than rewarding imagination and risk taking, offers rewards to
“those who follow all the rules, to the risk avoiders and the courtiers, to the managers and the bureaucrats.
Bureaucratic qualities, rather than battlefield qualities, appear to be the tickets for career success.”
156 M. Augier and S. F. X. Barrett
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
undermining the sustenance of deviants in a manner similar to how RAND tended to hire those who conformed to a
predefined research agenda as it continued to grow.
5. Marchian managerial lessons for USMC
So far, we have discussed aspects of the USMC using some perspectives and ideas from March to illustrate how the
Marine Corps has evolved and adapted, as well as how the maneuver warfare movement evolved. What might be
some Marchian lessons from our March-inspired organizational analysis of the USMC in general, and for the
generation and management of innovation, hot groups, and outliers in particular? Though one cannot perfectly plan
or design innovative hot groups, one can nurture and grow them and try to protect them from the rest of the organ-
ization. The mechanisms and managerial tactics March himself recognized include trying to increase innovation,
avoid myopia, encourage identities rather than incentives, and buffer exploration. With regards to the first two, he
noted that organizational identification and a logic of identity, which is something the USMC should be able to do
quite well, may help extend the time and space horizons for organizational members.
33
5.1 Organizational loyalty and logic of identity rather than incentives
The Marine Corps has carefully cultivated a reputation for being an elite organization that challenges its members
mentally, physically, and spiritually, thus facilitating the self-selection of those inspired by this identity. The USMC
takes great satisfaction in being uniquely charged by Congress to be “the most ready when the nation is least ready”
(USMC, 2014: iv; U. S. Marine Corps Readiness, 2016: 3), and the organization is committed to a demanding, expli-
cit warrior code, anchored in history, wherein personal objectives are subsumed by pride in—and an almost religious
dedication to—one’s country, the Corps, and one’s unit (Warren, 2005: 13).
34
The famous “We don’t promise you a
rose garden” poster featuring Drill Instructor Sergeant Charles A. Taliano was the first in a series of posters with the
slogan “The Marines are looking for a few good men,” a campaign which ran from late 1971 until mid-1984
(Brofer, 2006). The poster was paired with a public service announcement (PSA) for the Marine Corps Recruiting
Service that challenged men who were not “afraid of tough physical training or tough technical skills” to “earn their
membership in an elite force” (Audie Murphy American Legend, 2013). The PSA made no promises other than to
make the viewer a Marine—“one of the few and one of the finest” (Audie Murphy American Legend, 2013). The
PSA embodied the sense that to be a Marine is a vocation in which an individual recognizes that he is part of some-
thing larger than himself, and his life is imbued with a sense of purpose (cf. March, 2003). Those that self-select into
the Marine Corps are drawn to the challenge—physical, mental, and otherwise—of what it takes to be a Marine.
During the transformation process at boot camp, recruits spend countless hours on rigorous physical training,
weapons handling, drill, uniform inspections, and lessons on history and tradition. Whereas members of the other
services tend to identify more closely with their particular branch or those who do a similar type of work, Marines
share a common identity as riflemen first and foremost. The Marine Corps lists as its first principle, which it claims
helps define the cultural identity of Marines, “Every Marine a Rifleman. Every Marine—regardless of occupational
specialty or status—is first and foremost a disciplined warrior” (U.S. Marine Corps, 2008b: 8).
35
This identity has
33 March’s emphasis on logic of identity and its role in encouraging and buffering novelty was somewhat recent, but the
roots of this side of his interest go back to his interest in playfulness and foolishness (March, 1971).
34 Marines (2015) shows a Drill Instructor (DI) providing an introductory monologue to new recruits, explaining the ground
rules at boot camp. DIs emphasize that to become a part of the “world’s finest fighting force,” recruits must train as a
team. Recruits are not allowed to use the pronoun “I” during the course of training, and the haircut recruits are given
upon their arrival symbolically strips away their individuality. Lead DIs foster an appreciation for, and obligation to live
up to, the Marine Corps’ history through guided discussions. The unique role of the Marine DI in this transformation
process has been exalted in popular culture by, for example, roles played by R. Lee Ermey, himself a Marine, in “The
Boys in Company C” and “Full Metal Jacket.”
35 As a result, Schogol (2017) notes how the Marine Corps has proven more skeptical than other services concerning for-
mer Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s “Force of the Future” reforms, including lateral entry—in other words, the abil-
ity to skip boot camp and begin service at a mid-career rank. In contrast, LaGrone (2016) details the controversy
concerning the U.S. Navy’s decision to stop referring to enlisted sailors by their rating (e.g. Hospital Corpsman or
Damage Controlman), replacing these ratings with their more generic titles of Seaman (E1–E3) or Petty Officer (E4–E6).
Organizational perspectives on the maneuver warfare movement 157
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
always led the Marine Corps to stress the human dimension in war and focus on the individual Marine—the rifle-
man, not weapons, technology, or systems—as its “number-one priority,” its “most important warfighting asset,”
and as the foundation for its ability to fight and win wars (USMC, 1997: 3–14; USMC, 2008a:1;USMC, 2008b: 14;
O’Connell, 2012: 9). That all enlisted Marines attend boot camp at one of two places, Marine Corps Recruit Depot
(MCRD) Parris Island or MCRD San Diego, and that all officers, including future aviators, attend a 6-month basic
rifle platoon commander training course at The Basic School (TBS) in Quantico undoubtedly results in shared experi-
ences that foster this unique identity. Despite a reverence for tradition and the past, this emphasis on identity rather
than incentives encourages Marines to think more of the organization than of themselves.
5.2 We-leadership
Part and parcel of this identity is the concept of we-leadership. Emphasizing the group (i.e. “we”) more than the
individual (i.e. “I” or “me”) engenders an obligation to serve people in the organization and enhances followers’
commitment to, and identification with, the organization (Gray and Otte, 2006). As leaders forge a connection be-
tween followers and the organization, followers’ values more closely align with that of the organization, thus making
them more likely to take actions that benefit the organization and speak up when the organization is running off
course. In contrast, the DoD’s emphasis on “ticket punching” and the resulting need for career management encour-
ages the individual to focus inward on his own self-preservation and advancement. This mindset concerned early
maneuverists like Wyly, Wilson, and Gray (Professional Military Education, 1988; Wyly, 2008;Wilson, 2011;Otte,
2015: 27). Gray himself was known for saying, “Never say “I” unless you are talking about a mistake” (Otte, 2015:
30). Wyly in particular embodies the ethos of the Marine who put the well-being of the organization above his own
career. Recent changes to the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act are an encouraging step toward easing
the cookie cutter career path approach that could afford Marines the time and opportunity to take chances that could
benefit the organization. As this careerist mindset is eased, Marines might become more inclined to view their service
as a vocation.
5.3 Buffering exploration
The operational tempo of the DoD and the proliferation of annual training and administrative requirements leave lit-
tle “slack” for exploration and possibly even undermine mission accomplishment. The DoD, for example, has been
criticized as being “too busy to learn” (Scales, 2010). Driven by a declining dwell-to-deployment ratio from when the
Marine Corps was deploying (seemingly nonstop) to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as by the growth in these require-
ments, training became increasingly standardized at the institutional level to alleviate some of the logistical and ad-
ministrative burdens associated with training. Infantry battalions conducted largely the same training schedule, and
as a result, platoon and company commanders no longer had to find creative ways to train with a limited budget.
Exercises were scripted to afford infantry battalions the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to accomplish the
dictated “mission essential tasks” so they could deploy, which in many ways became more important than effective-
ness once on the battlefield. In recognition of this continuing reality and in a hopeful first step, in a July 21, 2017
memo, former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who himself grew up in the Marine Corps during the maneuver
warfare movement, ordered the review of mandatory training not directly related to core tasks (Copp, 2017).
36
Marine Corps leadership has also expressed a desire to incorporate more force-on-force training (Harkins, 2018;
South, 2018), which could encourage creativity to win a game that results in winners and losers.
6. Closing
This article has discussed aspects of USMC institutional history through the lens of some ideas and works of James
G. March. In particular, his interest in novelty, organizational adaptation, and outliers (and their roles in enabling
hot group movements in organizations) can be usefully applied to the history and unfolding of the maneuver warfare
movement in the USMC. In addition to improving our understanding of the organizational dynamics underlying the
role of the movement and the greater organizational transformation of the USMC in the 1970s–1980s, one can also
Approximately 3 months after making this change, the Navy reversed course and restored the enlisted rating titles due
to the public outcry.
36 The memo can be found at https://ec.militarytimes.com/static/pdfs/mattismemo.pdf.
158 M. Augier and S. F. X. Barrett
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
draw lessons from March’s emphasis on the need to protect and buffer exploration and novelty through, for instance,
identity-based decision making and we-leadership. These lessons are possibly useful to the Marine Corps in the future
as it struggles to find its way back to the maneuver warfare way of thinking.
In addition to lessons for the Marine Corps, there are at least two other possible implications or avenues for fur-
ther exploration. First, scholars interested in further refining their understanding of the dynamics of organizational
change across different types of organizations might find such (and other) Marchian perspectives useful as starting
points for understanding the dynamics of routines and change in military organizations more generally. March often
remarked that if one wanted to study the dynamics concerning routines, military organizations (and churches) would
be good candidates. Applying March’s ideas to military organizations could possibly complement the several decades
of research on organizational change and the insights developed regarding issues such as organizational learning,
strategic renewal, and collaborations within and across teams.
Second, scholars might also find the application of March’s ideas to military organizations useful in exploring the
limitations of one’s favorite theory or perspective. Why, for instance, is it that the military organizations not only
seem to have a very strong hierarchy and order, but also in some sense, room for very decentralized decision making?
How can they emphasize both rigidity and innovation? What is it in their organizational DNA (or, some might say,
culture) that explains their adaptiveness and (sometimes) competitive edge? If organizations live these apparent con-
tradictions, how might we revise or refine our concepts to better capture this? While these last issues might lead to
more questions than answers, it would be quite in the spirit of what March saw as central to the field: to explore the
little ideas and understand the dynamics they entail, and maybe to draw a useful insight or two for the field. And
that, as he would say, wouldn’t be entirely bad.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the editors and reviewer for comments on previous versions, as well as to General Al Gray, USMC (ret.); Colonel
GI Wilson, USMCR (ret.); Colonel Mike Wyly, USMC (ret.); and Lieutenant Colonel Bill Woods, USMC (ret.) for taking time to
talk with us about the US Marine Corps. We are also grateful for the comments from an unnamed referee. Any remaining errors
were produced without help. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the official policy or position of any agency of the US government.
References
Alexander, J. H. (2004), ‘Archibald Henderson: 1820-1859,’ in A. R. Millett and J. Shulimson (eds), Commandants of the Marine
Corps. Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, MD, pp. 54–73.
Audie Murphy American Legend (2013), ‘USMC “Rose Garden” Recruiting Commerical (PSA) BEST EVER! Lynn Anderson (1973)
[Video Clip],’ https://www.youtube.com/watch? v¼6sWW0nxi9bw.
Augier, M. and J. Guo (2016), ‘Overcoming negative leadership challenges through we-leadership: building organizational identifica-
tion and commitment, with inspiration from the United States Marine Corps,’ in D. Watola and D. Woychesin (eds), Negative
Leadership: International Perspectives. Canadian Defence Academy Press: Kingston, ON.
Augier, M., J. G. March and A. W. Marshall (2015), ‘Perspective—the flaring of intellectual outliers: an organizational interpretation
of the generation of novelty in the RAND corporation,’ Organization Science,26(4), 1140–1161.
Ballendorf, D. K. and M. L. Bartlett (1997), Pete Ellis. An Amphibious Warfare Prophet, 1880-1923. Naval Institute Press:
Annapolis, MD.
Batcheller, G. (1982), ‘Reexamining maneuver warfare,’ Marine Corps Gazette,66 (4), 22–23.
Binkin, M. and J. Record (1976), Where Does the Marine Corps Go from Here? Brookings Institution: Washington, DC.
Brofer, J. (2006), ‘We don’t promise you a rose garden,’ TECOM Training & Education Command. http://www.tecom.marines.mil/
News/News-Article-Display/Article/527984/we-dont-promise-you-a-rose-garden/.
Clifford, K. J. (1973), Progress and Purpose. A Developmental History of the United States Marine Corps 1900–1970. U.S. Marine
Corps History and Museums Division: Washington, DC.
Copp, T. (2017), ‘Mattis: get unnecessary training off warfighters’ backs,’ Military Times. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/
your-military/2017/07/25/mattis-get-unnecessary-training-off-warfighters-backs/.
Cosmas, G. A. and J. Shulimson (1983), ‘The Culebra Maneuver and the formation of the U.S. Marine Corps’s advance base force,
1913–1914,’ in M. L. Bartlett (ed.), Assault from the Sea: Essays on the History of Amphibious Warfare. Naval Institute Press:
Annapolis, MD.
Cyert, R. and J. G. March (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Organizational perspectives on the maneuver warfare movement 159
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
Damian, F. (2008), ‘The road to FMFM 1: The United States Marine Corps and maneuver warfare doctrine, 1979–1989,’ Master’s
thesis. Kansas State University: Manhattan, KS.
Dawson, J. G. I. I. (1998), ‘With fidelity and effectiveness: archibald Henderson’s lasting legacy to the U.S. Marine Corps,’ The
Journal of Military History,62(4), 727–753.
Dell, M. and P. Querubin (2018), ‘Nation building through foreign intervention: evidence from discontinuities in military strategies,’
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,133(2), 701–764.
Ezerzer, S. (2016), ‘The Great Story NEVER Told – The Untold Story General (Ret) Alfred M. Gray [Video File],’ https://www.you
tube.com/watch?v=PvU0nTickWo&app=desktop#fauxfullscreen.
Fullam, W. F. (1896), ‘The Organization, training, and discipline of the Navy personnel as viewed from the ship,’ Proceedings, 22,
83–116.
Gansler, J. S. and W. Lucyshyn (2014), Improving the DoD’s Tooth-to-Tail Ratio. University of Maryland, School of Public Policy,
Center for Public Policy and Private Enterprise: College Park, MD.
Gates, R. M. (2014), Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War. Alfred A. Knopf: New York, NY.
Gray, A. and P. Otte (2006), The Conflicted Leader and Vantage Leadership. Franklin University Press: Columbus, OH.
Harkins, G. (2018), ‘New force-on-force “free play” training will teach Marines to think on their feet,’ Military.com. https://www.
military.com/daily-news/2018/10/24/new-force-force-free-play-training-will-teach-marines-think-their-feet.html/October 24.
Hart, G. and W. S. Lind (1986), America Can Win: The Case for Military Reform. Adler & Adler, Publishers, Inc.: Bethesda, MD.
Inspector General (2010), ‘Evaluation of DoD accident reporting (Report No. SPO-2010-007),’ U.S. Department of Defense:
Washington, DC.
Kahn, H. and I. Mann (1957), Pitfalls in Analysis. RAND Corporation: Santa Monica, CA.
Kahneman, D. and D. Lovallo (1993), ‘Timid choices and bold forecasts: a cognitive perspective on risk taking,’ Management
Science,39(1), 17–31.
Kane, T. (2013), Bleeding Talent. How the US Military Mismanages Great Leaders and Why It’s Time for a Revolution. Palgrave
Macmillan: New York, NY.
Krepinevich, A. F. Jr. (1986), The Army and Vietnam. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD.
Krulak, V. H. (1984), First to Fight. An Inside View of the U.S. Marine Corps. Naval Institute Press: Annapolis, MD.
LaGrone, S. (2016), ‘Navy to restore enlisted rating titles after months of criticism,’ USNI News. http://news.usni.org/2016/12/20/
navy-restore-enlisted-rating-titles-months-criticism/December 20.
Leavitt, H. (1996), ‘The old days, hot groups, and managers’ lib,’ Administrative Science Quarterly,41(2), 288–300.
Leavitt, B. and J. G. March (1988), ‘Organizational learning,’ Annual Review of Sociology,14, 319–340.
Leavitt, H. J. and J. Lipman-Blumen (1995), ‘Hot groups,’ Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1995/07/hot-groups
Levinthal, D. A. and J. G. March (1993), ‘The myopia of learning,’ Strategic Management Journal,14(S2), 95–112.
Lind, W. S. (1978), ‘Proposing some new models for Marine Mechanized Units,’ Marine Corps Gazette,62(9), 34–38.
Lind, W. S. (1980), ‘Defining maneuver warfare for the Marine Corps,’ Marine Corps Gazette,64(3), 55–58.
Lind, W. S. (1984), ‘The case for maneuver doctrine,’ in A. A. Clark IV, P. W. Chiarelli, J. S. McKitrick and J. W. Reed (eds), The
Defense Reform Debate: Issues and Analysis. Johns Hopkins University: Baltimore, MD.
Lind, W. S. and J. Record (1978), ‘Marines don’t write about warfare,’ Marine Corps Gazette,62(2), 14.
Lipman-Blumen, J. and H. Leavitt (1999a), ‘Hot groups “with attitude”: a new organizational state of mind,’ Organizational
Dynamics,27(4), 63–73.
Lipman-Blumen, J. and H. Leavitt (1999b), Hot Groups. Seeding Them, Feeding Them, & Using Them to Ignite Your Organization.
Oxford University Press: New York, NY.
MAGTF Instructional Group (2015), ‘Warfighting Panel [Video file],’ http://www.youtube.com/watch? v¼RL4__NVYByw/March
26.
March, J. G. (ed.) (1965), Handbook of Organizations. Rand McNally: New York, NY.
March, J. G. (1971), ‘The technology of foolishness,’ Civiløkonomen,18, 4–12.
March, J. G. (1978), ‘Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice,’ The Bell Journal of Economics,9(2), 587–608.
March, J. G. (1991), ‘Exploration and exploitation organizational learning,’ Organization Science,2(1), 71–87.
March, J. G. (1999), ‘Research on organizations: hopes for the past and lessons from the future,’ in J. G. March (ed.), Explorations in
Organizations (2008). Stanford University Press: Palo Alto, CA, pp. 310–324.
March, J. G. (2003), ‘A scholar’s quest,’ Journal of Management Inquiry,12(3), 205–207.
March, J. G. (2006), ‘Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence,’ Strategic Management Journal,27(3), 201–214.
March, J. G. and J. P. Olsen (2011), ‘The logic of appropriateness,’ in R. E. Goodin (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Science.
Oxford University Press: New York, NY, pp. 479–497.
March, J. G. and R. Weissinger-Baylon (1986), Ambiguity and Command. Organizational Perspectives on Military Decision Making.
Pitman Publishing: New York, NY.
160 M. Augier and S. F. X. Barrett
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
March, J. G., M. Schulz and X. Zhou (2000), The Dynamics of Rules. Change in Written Organizational Codes. Stanford University
Press: Palo Alto, CA.
Marines (2015), ‘The Transformation jMaking United States Marines [Video Clip]’, https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v¼hpFpHfFbAPI/November 4.
Marshall, A. W. (1991), ‘Strategy as a profession for future generations,’ in A. W. Marshall, J. J. Martin and H. S. Rowen (eds), On
Not Confusing Ourselves: Essays on National Security Strategy in Honor of Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter. Westview Press:
Boulder, CO.
McCarthy, G. C. (2017), ‘Are there too many General Officers for today’s military?,’ Joint Force Quarterly,87(4), 76–81.
McGrath, J. J. (n.d.), The Other End of the Spear. The Tooth-to-Tail Ratio (T3R) in Modern Military Operations (The Long War
Series Occasional Paper 23). Combat Studies Institute Press: Fort Leavenworth, KS.
Miller, S. W. (1978), ‘It’s time to mechanize amphibious forces,’ Marine Corps Gazette,62(6), 39–42.
Miller, S. W. (1979a), ‘Defining mechanization,’ Marine Corps Gazette,63(2), 12.
Miller, S. W. (1979b), ‘Winning through maneuver: part I-Countering the offense,’ Marine Corps Gazette,63(10), 28–36.
Millett, A. (1991), Semper Fidelis. The History of the United States Marine Corps, rev. edn. The Free Press: New York, NY.
NOVA (2004), ‘The immutable nature of war,’ PBS.Org. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/immutable-nature-war/May 4.
O’Connell, A. B. (2012), Underdogs. The Making of the Modern Marine Corps. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Oseth, J. M. (1984), ‘An overview of the reform debate,’ in A. A. Clark IV, P. W. Chiarelli, J. S. McKitrick and J. W. Reed (eds.), The
Defense Reform Debate: Issues and Analysis. Johns Hopkins University: Baltimore, MD.
Otte, P. (2015), Grayisms. And Other Thoughts on Leadership from General Al Gray, USMC (Retired) 29th Commandant of the
Marine Corps. Potomac Institute Press: Arlington, VA.
Pounds, W. F. (2004), ‘Unfinished Business’. Unpublished paper.
Professional Military Education (1988), Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services’ Military Education Panel, House of
Representatives, 100th Congress, Statement of General Alfred Gray, Commandant of the Marine Corps, July 12.
Ricks, T. E. (2013), The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today. Penguin Books: New York, NY.
Rodgers, W. L. (1888), ‘Notes on the Naval Brigade,’ Proceedings,14, 57–96.
Romm, J. J. (1991), ‘The Gospel according to Sun Tzu’, Forbes, December 9.
Scales, R. H. (2010), ‘Too busy to learn,’ Army History,76, 27–31.
Schogol, J. (2017), ‘Every Marine a rifleman no more?,’ Marine Corps Times. http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-
corps/2017/05/07/every-marine-a-rifleman-no-more/.
Seck, H. H. (2019), ‘2nd Marine Division CO regrets how he rolled out stringent new routine. But he’s not backing down,’
Military.com. Retrieved from https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/04/30/2nd-mardiv-commander-gives-himself-daily-rou
tine-policy-d-rollout.html/.
Simon, H. A. (1954), ‘Some strategic considerations in the construction of social science models,’ in P. F. Lazarsfeld (ed.),
Mathematical Thinking in Social Sciences. The Free Press: Glencoe, IL.
Simon, H. A. (1991), Models of My Life. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
South, T. (2018), ‘This is why US Marines will be pitted against British Royal Marines in a force-on-force battle,’ Marine Corps
Times. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/11/16/this-is-why-us-marines-will-be-pitted-against-brit
ish-royal-marines-in-a-force-on-force-battle/.
Spector, R. (1977), The Naval War College and the Development of the Naval Profession. Naval War College Press: Newport, RI.
Trainor, B. E. (1980), ‘New thoughts on war,’ Marine Corps Gazette,64(12), 49–51.
Turley, G. H. (2017), The Journey of a Warrior, 2nd edn. Potomac Institute Press: Arlington, VA.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (2013), Defense Headquarters. DoD Needs to Periodically Review and Improve Visibility of
Combatant Commands’ Resources (Gao-13-293). GAO: Washington, DC.
U.S. Marine Corps (1989), FMFM 1. Warfighting. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC.
U.S. Marine Corps (1997), Warfighting, MCDP 1. United States Marine Corps: Washington, DC, http://www.marines.mil/Portals/
59/Publications/MCDP%201%20Warfighting.pdf.
U.S. Marine Corps (2008a), Marine Corps Concepts and Programs 2008. Washington, DC. http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/pandr/
Concepts-and-Programs/Concepts-and-Programs-2008/.
U.S. Marine Corps (2008b), Marine Corps Vision and Strategy 2025. Washington, DC. http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/
Docs/MCVS2025%2030% 20June%5B1%5D.pdf.
U.S. Marine Corps (2014), Commander’s Readiness Handbook. Washington, DC. https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/138/HiRes
%20Commanders%20Readiness%20Handbook.pdf.
U.S. Marine Corps Readiness (2016), Hearings before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, House of
Representatives, 114th Congress, Statement of General John Paxton, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, https://www.
hsdl.org/?view&did=798123 15.
Vandergriff, D. (2002), The Path to Victory. America’s Army and the Revolution in Human Affairs. Presidio Press: New York, NY.
Organizational perspectives on the maneuver warfare movement 161
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
Voigt, R. H. (1982), ‘Comments on maneuver warfare,’ Marine Corps Gazette,66(4), 20.
Warren, J. A. (2005), American Spartans. The Free Press: New York, NY.
Williamson, O. E. (1996), The Mechanisms of Governance. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.
Williamson, O. E. (2004), ‘Herbert Simon and organization theory: lessons for the theory of the firm,’ in M. Augier and J. G. March
(eds), Models of a Man: Essays in Memory of Herbert A. Simon. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, pp. 279–296.
Wilson, G. I. (1981), ‘The “maneuver warfare” concept,’ Marine Corps Gazette,65(4), 49–51.
Wilson, G. I. (1991), ‘The Gulf War, maneuver warfare, and the operational art,’ Marine Corps Gazette,75(6), 23–24.
Wilson, G. I. (2011), ‘Careerism,’ in W. T. Wheeler (ed.), The Pentagon Labyrinth: 10 Short Essays to Help You through It. Center
for Defense Information: Washington, DC.
Wong, L. and S. J. Gerras (2015), Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession. U.S. Army War College Press: Carlisle, PA.
Wyly, M. D. (1993), ‘Doctrinal change: the move to maneuver theory,’ Marine Corps Gazette,77(10), 44.
Wyly, M. D. (2008), ‘In praise of mavericks: A true professional will strive to do something, not be someone,’ Armed Forces Journal,
July, 42.
Wyly, M. D. (2019), ‘When Our Tactics Changed,’ Unpublished manuscript.
162 M. Augier and S. F. X. Barrett
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icc/article-abstract/29/1/143/5686023 by Naval Postgraduate School Dudley Knox Library user on 26 February 2020
