adjust existing work systems, should they choose to take advantage of them.
The Army's work structure is the basis for selecting, training, organizing, and managing personnel to meet mission requirements. The result of changing mission requirements has been the development of a smaller, more flexible force with a wider range of fighting skills—as well as new skills in negotiation and interpersonal interaction. The increased diversity of Army missions coupled with downsizing has led to the creation of teams composed of individuals from different work cultures with different skills.
The growing role of women in the military, the increasing age and family responsibilities of military personnel, the growing use of units composed of regulars, reservists, and civilians, and the increasingly prevalence of joint missions with military units from other countries indicate that diversity will be a salient feature of military work. It is beyond the scope of our work to judge whether or not officers and soldiers are being trained adequately to lead and function effectively in these diverse settings. Given these developments, however, we believe that a thorough analysis of this question should be undertaken.
The Army views technology as a key strategic and tactical resource. Yet there is still a tendency to view the choice, design, and use of technologies as somewhat separate. There is a need to better integrate the design of technology and the design of work structures. Those who design and purchase new technical systems need to be informed by and work in tandem with those who design work structures. The key lesson from the civilian sector is that the maximum benefits of a technology come from its effective integration with work systems and human resource practices.
Another implication of the Army's use of advanced technologies is the probable upskilling of jobs. It is likely that the qualifications required of personnel in the leaner military of the future