while reasoning under uncertainty. Moreover, as we will note below, the need for these skills is not limited to officers. The same forces that drive delegation of greater decision-making authority and a blurring of the manager-worker boundary in the civilian sector are at work on the officer-soldier boundary in the work of the Army.
The downsizing of the military forces also creates pressures to delegate to lower-level soldiers tasks and decisions traditionally embedded in officer ranks. This pressure may be heightened by technology (e.g., distributed battlefield technologies) that encourages such delegation of authority and responsibility. Layers of supervision may be reduced. The officer-soldier distinction may experience some blurring similar to that affecting the blue-collar-managerial distinction in the civilian sector. Attention should be given to the implications of these new roles for personnel management. There are at least two possible cases in which previously distinct jobs may be at least partially melded in the future. One distinction is that between operational users (e.g., tank crews, helicopter crews) and maintainers. Another distinction is that between commanders and subordinates.
Although the military's new strategic emphasis on speed and flexibility of response has implications for a wider distribution of information and work responsibilities, there is little serious consideration being given to flatter, nonhierarchical organizational structures. Nonetheless, with fewer personnel, there may be a need for individual soldiers to have a broader range of skills than in the past or to work with a more diverse group of individuals from various sectors of the Department of Defense. The work structure should be flexible enough to adapt to these changes, and it must facilitate a rapid response to a wide variety of situations and team configurations.
One of the most important implications suggested by the framework used to organize our analysis and the evidence pre-