Corporate knowledge - better learning

This is a post in my Ethics, Lazy Management, and Flawed Thinking series - see https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/ethics-lazy-management-and-flawed.html.

One of the significant things about most militaries, apart from their unpleasant purpose, is their dedication to learning.

It is common - and right - for all non-combatant deaths to be deplored, but, notwithstanding that such deaths do occur, the military these days is much better at preventing them than it used to be. As an example, I've read estimates of French civilian deaths for D-Day that range from 3,000 to 15,000, and 50,000 for the entire bombing campaign associated with that action. - see also here, here, and here.

We don't hear much about that (and it has disappeared from the main Wikipedia article again; it used to be there [who the hell took it out, and why???] ).

When we compare that to current and recent events, despite there being a need for further improvement, there has been some improvement.

In fact, the events that the book and film "The Men Who Stare at Goats" were based on, and I am thinking of the learning from the "human potential movement" in particular, did happen.

So: the military does try, in its own way, to learn. (There is more I could write about that, but not in this post - look up  for more.)

One of the things that the military does which I consider has potential value elsewhere is the use of unit diaries.

Now, in personal development, the use of personal journals is standard practice, and is accepted because it improves the efficiency of our learning.

I contend that the same applies to a properly recorded organisational journal, whether military or commercial. (The commercial version would also have to include market conditions and influences, organisational staffing and skill levels, etc.)


The information would enable management to assess proposals for new actions against what has worked and what has NOT worked in the past, and thus either stop what would be a waste in its tracks, or, at the very least, fine tune suggestions to improve their chances of success.

I have the impression that too many - not all, by any means - managers approach their job from an ideological dogma, possibly one imprinted by a University course, and thus there is a lot of hiring and firing until, coincidentally, market conditions, staff levels & skills, and opportunities get the results are desired.

The perfect example of this is the economic ineptness of Australia's current neoliberal government (see here, here, and here, for instance).

From my working life, over the last two or three decades, since project managers lost their technical literacy, I've routinely experienced every basically indulging in abuse using economic arguments that, in real life terms, actually are naive and lacking in any sense.

It's as if they've all come, bright eyed and bushy tailed, from the same project management factory, and the factory hasn't earned.

Actually, there has been signs of some improvement in the last 5 years or so, but I think that is more because the company I work for has infused its experience into the system.

And that sort of "infusement" could be done more efficaciously if we maintained a proper, accessible, up-to-date record of our corporate thinking, actions, and experiences - i.e., a corporate unit diary.