Defense decision-making under budget stringency: Examining downsizing in the United States Army

The United States Army has undergone several periods of downsizing throughout its history. This dissertation examines the role of external factors and decisions made by the army leadership in the face of budget stringency that influenced military effectiveness after downsizing. The study examines in detail three periods of significant stringency---the interwar years, after the Korean War, and after the Vietnam War---and concludes that army leaders did have significant control over the implementation of budget stringency. Comparison of the decisions over time reveals a great deal about the way that the army in particular and large organizations in general react to budget stringency.; This dissertation argues that the army's deeply ingrained approach to peacetime decision making has a subtle yet profound impact that frequently degrades the army's effectiveness after downsizing. This approach recurs so frequently that it is labeled the peacetime "Army Concept" and reflects three organizational biases. First, people are of paramount importance and will be emphasized over all other factors, including modernization and technology. Second, the ability to expand the army in war is integral to peacetime decision making and leads to maintaining large organizational structures that frequently become hollow. Third, the army's peacetime approach emphasizes equitable allocation of resources and inhibits implementation of a proactive vision that might redistribute resources among major commands and branches. In spite of the earnest efforts of army leaders, these widely shared beliefs often lead to an army that is much less effective after downsizing than it could have been.; This study makes conclusions about the impact of decisions on each of seven dimensions of effectiveness---personnel, force structure, leadership, readiness, modernization, sustainability, and doctrine---and on the military effectiveness of the army as a whole. Based on the cases studied, the dissertation provides conclusions concerning why the organizational biases persist, why decision making by some leaders varies from that of others, and what the army should do in current and future periods of stringency. Detailed examination of the United States Army as a case study provides insight into the critical importance of organizational leadership and decision making during budget stringency.