By Jeremiah Monk
Colonel Billy Mitchell during his 1925 court-martial (National Archives)
INTRODUCTION
Innovation is a driving force behind progress, and in today’s world, the ability to adapt, evolve, and think differently is critical to maintaining a strategic advantage. Nowhere is this more important than in military operations, where creativity in tactics, technology, and strategy can determine victory or defeat. However, the U.S. military has struggled with fostering innovation, primarily due to the very structure and culture of its promotion system. This article explores the tension between the need for innovation and the barriers imposed by a system that often rewards conformity and sidelines mavericks—individuals like Billy Mitchell and Jimmy Doolittle who dared to think differently and defy convention.
THE CONFORMITY CULTURE IN MILITARY PROMOTION
The U.S. military is known for its discipline, order, and professionalism—qualities that are critical for operational success and unit cohesion. But these qualities come at a cost. The military promotion system emphasizes “professional mastery,” which is often defined by adherence to established doctrine, following orders, and demonstrating a consistent record of achievement within traditional parameters. Officers who conform to the expectations of their superiors are often rewarded with promotions, while those who question the status quo or propose radical changes may find themselves sidelined or even ostracized.
This system is designed to ensure stability and reliability, which are crucial in times of crisis. However, it also creates an environment where risk-taking and divergent thinking are viewed as liabilities rather than assets. Mavericks—those who think differently and challenge conventional wisdom—are often considered disruptive to the chain of command and a threat to cohesion. As a result, they are frequently discouraged from advancing in their careers, and their ideas are often left unrealized.
Billy Mitchell, for example, is often cited as one of the earliest mavericks in U.S. military history. A vocal advocate for air power, Mitchell faced intense opposition from the Army establishment for his insistence that the future of warfare lay in air superiority. He was eventually court-martialed for insubordination, effectively ending his military career. Yet, his vision of air power ultimately proved prophetic during World War II, underscoring the cost of silencing innovative thinkers.
Jimmy Doolittle, another iconic maverick, led the daring Doolittle Raid during World War II—a mission that, at the time, was considered a high-risk operation with little strategic gain. However, the psychological impact of the raid was significant, boosting American morale and undermining Japanese confidence. Doolittle’s success demonstrates the value of embracing unconventional thinking, but his career trajectory was the exception rather than the rule.
THE NEED FOR MAVERICKS IN A COMPLEX SECURITY ENVIRONMENT
Mavericks like Mitchell and Doolittle are precisely the type of thinkers needed in today’s rapidly changing security landscape. The current environment is characterized by speed, ambiguity, and complexity, with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, and autonomous systems reshaping the nature of conflict. In such a setting, the ability to think creatively and develop innovative approaches is essential to maintaining a competitive edge.
However, the military’s traditional promotion and reward structure is poorly suited to this new reality. To succeed, the U.S. military must cultivate a culture that encourages creative thinking, calculated risk-taking, and the willingness to challenge existing doctrines. Unfortunately, the current system too often rewards those who play it safe—those who fit neatly into the mold of professional mastery defined by conformity and adherence to established norms.
Mavericks, by definition, do not fit into this mold. They question the efficacy of established procedures, propose new strategies, and push boundaries. These individuals are not always easy to work with, and their ideas may not always succeed. But the very act of challenging the status quo can lead to breakthroughs that would be impossible within the confines of traditional thinking. The military needs people who are willing to think outside the box, and it must create an environment where such thinking is not only tolerated but actively encouraged.
THE ARCHAIC MILITARY RESOURCING, PROGRAMMING, AND BUDGETING PROCESS
The U.S. military’s approach to resource allocation further compounds the challenge of fostering innovation. The programming, planning, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process is notoriously rigid and bureaucratic, often taking years to move from concept to funding to implementation. This system, developed during the Cold War, was designed to provide stability and predictability in military spending. However, in a world where threats evolve rapidly and technological advancements can render existing capabilities obsolete within months, the PPBE process is increasingly at odds with the need for flexibility and agility.
For innovation to thrive, organizations must be able to pivot quickly, reallocate resources, and experiment with new ideas. The current budgeting process, with its long lead times and multiple layers of oversight, makes this extremely difficult. By the time funding is approved for a new initiative, the threat landscape may have shifted, rendering the initial concept irrelevant. This is particularly problematic in areas like cyber warfare, where the ability to respond rapidly to emerging threats is crucial.
Moreover, the PPBE process often favors large, established defense contractors with the resources to navigate its complexities, further stifling innovation. Smaller companies and startups, which are often the source of the most disruptive technologies, struggle to break into the defense market due to the high barriers to entry. As a result, the military misses out on potential breakthroughs that could come from more nimble, unconventional players.
THE COST OF SUPPRESSING DIVERGENT THINKERS
The suppression of mavericks and the rigidity of the resourcing process place the U.S. military at a significant disadvantage, particularly in comparison to potential adversaries that are less constrained by bureaucracy. China, for example, has embraced a model of civil-military fusion that allows it to rapidly integrate commercial technologies into its military capabilities. The Chinese military has also demonstrated a willingness to experiment with new operational concepts and adapt its doctrine in response to changing circumstances.
In contrast, the U.S. military’s preference for stability over risk-taking means that it often struggles to adapt to new realities. The development of new technologies, tactics, and strategies requires a willingness to fail—something that the military’s promotion and budgeting systems do not easily accommodate. By weeding out mavericks and maintaining a rigid approach to resource allocation, the U.S. military risks falling behind in a world where speed and adaptability are increasingly important.
The consequences of this are not merely theoretical. In recent years, the U.S. has faced significant challenges in areas like cyber defense and space operations, where the traditional military approach has proven inadequate. The slow pace of innovation has left critical vulnerabilities unaddressed, and the reluctance to embrace unconventional thinking has hampered the development of effective responses. To maintain its strategic advantage, the U.S. military must find a way to reconcile the need for order and professionalism with the need for creativity and adaptability.
To effectively incorporate divergent thinking into strategy development, military organizations can implement a simple yet impactful solution: establish a dedicated group of "wild card" thinkers to develop an alternative course of action (COA) for each strategy proposal. Instead of a token "throw-away COA," this group—comprising individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and unconventional perspectives—would be tasked with creating a highly creative, seemingly improbable COA that challenges conventional assumptions. By formalizing this as a standard practice in planning sessions, the "wild COA" would serve as a catalyst for deeper discussions about risks, vulnerabilities, and potential opportunities, encouraging more comprehensive evaluation of strategic options and enhancing the robustness of the decision-making process.
CREATING A CULTURE THAT EMBRACES INNOVATION
To overcome these challenges, the U.S. military must make a concerted effort to change its culture and processes in ways that encourage innovation. This begins with reforming the promotion system to recognize and reward those who think differently and take calculated risks. The military should identify and cultivate talent that demonstrates not only professional mastery but also the ability to innovate and challenge existing paradigms. Officers who propose new ideas, even if those ideas ultimately fail, should be recognized for their willingness to push boundaries and contribute to the military’s evolution.
Additionally, the military must reform its resourcing, programming, and budgeting processes to allow for greater flexibility. This could involve creating dedicated innovation funds that are not subject to the same bureaucratic constraints as traditional programs, allowing for more rapid experimentation and iteration. The establishment of organizations like the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to integrate innovative thinking across all branches of the military.
The military should also look to foster partnerships with the private sector, academia, and other government agencies to tap into a broader pool of ideas and expertise. By creating a more open and collaborative environment, the military can benefit from the kind of cross-pollination that drives innovation in other sectors. This requires a shift away from the traditional “not invented here” mentality and towards a culture that is open to learning from others.
Finally, the military must be willing to accept a certain level of risk and failure. Innovation is inherently risky, and not every idea will succeed. However, the lessons learned from failure are often as valuable as those learned from success. By creating a culture that views failure as an opportunity for growth rather than a career-ending mistake, the military can encourage more officers to take the kinds of risks that lead to breakthrough innovations.
CONCLUSION
The U.S. military faces significant challenges in fostering innovation, largely due to a promotion system that rewards conformity and a resourcing process that inhibits flexibility. Mavericks like Billy Mitchell and Jimmy Doolittle—those who think differently and are willing to challenge the status quo—are often weeded out of the system, to the detriment of the military’s ability to adapt and innovate.
In an increasingly complex and rapidly changing security environment, the ability to innovate is not a luxury; it is a necessity. To maintain its strategic advantage, the U.S. military must create a culture that embraces divergent thinking, rewards risk-taking, and allows for greater flexibility in resource allocation. By doing so, it can ensure that it remains capable of meeting the challenges of the future with creativity, adaptability, and resilience.
The road to change will not be easy. It will require a fundamental shift in the way the military thinks about leadership, risk, and success. But by embracing the spirit of the mavericks it once sidelined, the U.S. military can once again become a beacon of innovation and progress, ready to meet the challenges of a world that is evolving faster than ever before.
Comments