[Last amended: 23 May 16]

 

Here I will looks at a time when chaos is acknowledged to have reigned. I have chosen for my case a 24 hour period within Operation OVERLORD. This period is the 6th of June 1944; it is commonly referred to as "D-Day".  I have chosen this day because my Father-in-Law, Cyril Redhead, was there and he told me that it was chaos. He also told me that they coped, they did their job and won through. He was a quiet gentleman with a delightful stubborn streak. I could only imagine what he went through and how he coped . The more I have read of that day, the more I admire each and every man that was there. Not that they all acted with great courage  or even honourably but they were there in conditions that many equated to being in hell. They were humans with all the foibles, strengths and weaknesses that it means to be human.  So how did they cope, how did they succeed, how did luck (exogenous happenstances) play for each side and each person? What they showed was that it was not the chaos that was to be feared, it was the induced inaction, it was the paralysis, it was the mental collapse from what Weick describes as cosmological episodes (when the world around you makes no sense) that is to be feared. From my reading of events on that day I am looking to distil lessons from how they coped with the chaos that can be applied today to business and life in general.

 

The research will be a review of literature.  I am examining the many books and websites devoted to this subject. This is not therefore a classic academic review of peer evaluated  papers. This is a review of what the average manager would read to understand a subject. It is a review that looks at how data is assimilated and evaluated to make sense of it. It is about how individuals evaluate many expert opinions that both contradict each other and make unwarranted (unproven) assertions. It also points to the indeterminate value of eye witness accounts. In this work I will also look at how a single local perspective can distort an evaluation. I therefore try to look at the day not only from both sides but also within its wider context. What is becoming very clear is that the more data you have, the less clear you become about the detail. After reading half a dozen books I had a clear idea of what occurred. After some more reading, as the experts contradicted each other, the pattern of what actually happened became less clear. As I have gone on, the data starts to reveal the true chaos of the day. As for that chaos and how they coped, you will have to wait. It is a fascinating story.

 

Methodological Approach

 

I have been asked what I hope to learn from this work. In short, I hope to see how those involved with the events  on 6 June 1944 at OMAHA beach managed to cope and then succeed when all around them seemed to be degenerating into  chaos. The question therefore becomes how I plan to go about this.

 

As part of the analytical process I have constructed a catalytic cube to help stimulate my thinking. The dimensions to be used are:

 

• Form of Coordination

• Commander's Perspective

• Communications Dimension

 

I will explain each in turn.

 

Forms of Coordination 

 

Interdependence

​

The first dimension is consideration of the forms of coordination used. My starting point is Perrow's warning contained within his idea of the Normal Accident.  Perrow warns that where complex systems are "tightly coupled", things will go wrong. We therefore have to ask the question of any system whether its components are tightly or loosely coupled. Thompson (1967) provides us with a description of three types of interdependence that we can use to assist in the task. A fourth was added by others later. These interdependences are [1] Independent or "pooled", [2] Sequential, [3] Reciprocal or [4] Team.

 

• Independent or "pooled": this type of interdependence can be seen in a call-centre. Here, in the main, each person deals separately with their own task while relying on the same infrastructure. While their tasks are loosely coupled, all individuals are tightly coupled to the infrastructure. Should the infrastructure fail, it would immediately affect them all.

​

• Sequential: Sequential interdependence is, as it suggests, based on a sequence of actions. Here the degree of coupling will depend on the context. It will depend on the point at which subsequent actions are able to start and their reliance on what has gone before.  In simple terms, interdependence (or coupling) may depend on any or all of the delivery variables (quality, quantity, time or cost).

 

• Reciprocal: Reciprocal interdependence is also, as it suggests, based on reciprocity between the interdependent parts, where working parts relate to each other both as inputs and outputs. As with sequential, coupling will depend on the context.

 

• Team: the idea of "team" was added later to Thompson's work. This interdependence is where a group is all working, in different ways, to the same end with no fixed script about how they will interact from moment to moment. There is extensive literature that examines "pseudo groups" (team equivalent of a planning "fantasy document") and "real teams"; however, for the purpose of this work, a real team is one that works well together instinctively. Work done by Katzenbach & Smith, (1993) provides a five point scale to help stimulate our thinking.

 

Fostering

​

So we now have four labels to provide a catalyst to think about the types of interdependence that may exist between system components. The questions then become how might these interdependences be fostered. In his book analysing a disaster, Snook (2000) uses the constructs of [1] Standards, [2] Plans and [3] Mutual adjustment to suggest how this may be done. I would add a fourth, "Cross-Understanding". Here are my thoughts of these categorisations:

 

• Standards: While initially this might seem a clear categorisation, in fact it is not. The term "standard" could include everything from formal (written) international standards through to the informal routines (common ways of working) carried out by workers. This categorisation does not make clear who has the authority to change the routine implied by the standard.

 

• Plan: this category includes any formal or informal sequential arrangements for the delivery of a desired end.

​

• Mutual adjustment: It is generally accepted that the term "mutual adjustment" is the way that one party accommodates the differing purposes of others, but does not lose sight of where they themselves want to go. The key here is that under this category the parts involved are pursuing different purposes.

​

• Cross-Understanding: this is the extent to which group members have an accurate understanding of one another’s mental models in pursuit of a common purpose. This is seen as a key mechanism within real teams.

 

The table below shows a perceived relationship between the interdependences and the promotional mechanisms. It is taken from Snooks' work. I have added the last line: