Influence of the Military Organization

The military organization has also influenced the development of theories of administration. The linear
organization, for example, has its origins in the military organization of the armies of Antiquity and
medieval times. The principle of unity of command, according to which each subordinate can only have
one superior - fundamental for the leadership function - is the central core of all military organizations of
those times. The hierarchical scale , that is, the scale of command levels according to the corresponding
degree of authority and responsibility , is a characteristic element of the military organization, used in other
organizations. As time went by, the gradual expansion of the scale of command also brought a
corresponding expansion of the degree of delegated authority: as the volume of military operations
increased, so did the need to delegate authority to lower levels within the organization. the military
organization. Still in the time of Napoleon (1769-1821l), the general, when leading his army, had the
responsibility of monitoring the entire battlefield. However. in the face of larger-scale battles. Even on a
continental scale, the command of war operations required, not new principles of organization, but the
extension of the principles then used, which led to centralized planning and control parallel to
decentralized operations. This led to the centralization of command and the decentralization of execution.
The concept of hierarchy within the military organization is as old as war itself, since there was always the
need for a general staff for the army.--However, the formal state, as headquarters, only appeared in 1665
with the District of Brandenburg, precursor of the Prussian army. The evolution of the advisory principle
and the formation of a general state had its origin in the 18th century in Prussia, with Emperor Frederick II,
the Great, (1712-1786) who, eager to increase the efficiency of his army, made some innovations in the
structure of the military organization. With the help of General Scharnhorst, a staff was created to advise
the military command (line).
Line and advisory officers worked independently, in a clear separation between the planning and execution
of war operations. The officers trained in the general staff were later transferred to command (line)
positions and again to the general staff, which assured them intense experience and experience in
cabinet, field and again cabinet functions . Another contribution of the military organization is the principle
of direction, through which every soldier must know perfectly what is expected of him and everything he
must do. Mooney highlights that even Napoleon, the most autocratic general in military history , never
gave an order without explaining its objective and making sure that it had been understood perfectly, since
he was convinced that blind obedience never leads to execution. intelligent of any act.
At the beginning of the 19th century, Carl Von Clausewitz (1780-1831), a Prussian general, wrote a
treatise on war and the principles of war, suggesting how to administer armies in times of war. He was the
great inspiration of many administration theorists who later based themselves on military organization and
strategy to adopt them to the industrial field.
Clausewitz considered discipline as the basis of good organization. For him, every organization requires
careful planning, in which decisions must be scientific and not intuitive again. Decisions should be based
on probability and not just logical necessity. The manager must accept uncertainty and plan in a way that
can minimize that uncertainty.
These organizations are the most pressured when it comes to good administration, that is why they have
contributed too many principles, one of the most important has been to organize an entire authority in a
single chief of staff, the companies took it as a way of hierarchizing for the concentration of personnel.

Read more: http://www.monografias.com/trabajos7/admi/admi2.shtml#ixzz2KQUipLeW

INFLUENCE OF THE MILITARY

ORGANIZATION ON THE
ADMINISTRATION
The military organization has also influenced the development of theories of
administration. The linear organization, for example, has its origins in the
military organization of the armies of Antiquity and medieval times. The
principle of unity of command, according to which each subordinate can only
have one superior - fundamental for the leadership function - is the central core
of all military organizations of those times. The hierarchical scale, that is, the
scale of command levels according to the corresponding degree of authority and
responsibility, is a characteristic element of the military organization, used in
other organizations. As time went by, the gradual expansion of the scale of
command also brought a corresponding expansion of the degree of delegated
authority: as the volume of military operations increased, so did the need to
delegate authority to lower levels within the organization. the military
organization. Still in the time of Napoleon (1769-1821), the general, when
leading his army, had the responsibility of guarding the entire battlefield.
However. in the face of larger-scale battles. Even on a continental scale, the
command of war operations required, not new principles of organization, but
the extension of the principles then used, which led to centralized planning and
control parallel to decentralized operations. This led to the centralization of
command and the decentralization of execution.
The concept of hierarchy within the military organization is as old as war itself,
since there was always the need for a general staff for the army.--However, the
formal state, as headquarters, only appeared in 1665 with the District of
Brandenburg, precursor of the Prussian army. The evolution of the advisory
principle and the formation of a general state had its origin in the 18th century
in Prussia, with Emperor Frederick II, the Great, (1712-1786) who, eager to
increase the efficiency of his army, made some innovations in the structure of
the military organization. With the help of General Scharnhorst, a staff was
created to advise the military command (line).
http://fundamentosyemprendimiento.blogspot.com/2010/11/influencia-de-la-organizacion-
militar.html

INFLUENCE OF THE MILITARY ORGANIZATION

The military organization has also influenced the development of theories of administration.
The linear organization, for example, has its origins in the military organization of the
armies of Antiquity and medieval times. The principle of unity of command, according to
which each subordinate can only have one superior - fundamental for the leadership
function - is the central core of all military organizations of those times. The hierarchical
scale, that is, the scale of command levels according to the corresponding degree of
authority and responsibility, is a characteristic element of the military organization, used in
other organizations. As time went by, the gradual expansion of the scale of command also
brought a corresponding expansion of the degree of delegated authority: as the volume of
military operations increased, so did the need to delegate authority to lower levels within
the organization. the military organization. Still in the time of Napoleon (1769-1821), the
general, when leading his army, had the responsibility of monitoring the entire battlefield.
However, in the face of larger-scale battles, including continental ones, the command of
war operations demanded, not new principles of organization, but the extension of the
principles then used, which led to centralized planning and control parallel to decentralized
operations. This led to the centralization of command and the decentralization of execution.

The concept of hierarchy within the military organization is as old as war itself, since there
has always been the need for a general staff for the army. However, the formal state, as a
headquarters, only appeared in 1665 with the Brandenburg District, the precursor of the
Prussian army. The evolution of the advisory principle and the formation of a general state
had its origin in the 18th century in Prussia, with Emperor Frederick II, the Great, (1712-
1786) who, eager to increase the efficiency of his army, made some innovations in the
structure of the military organization. With the help of General Scharnhorst, a staff was
created to advise the military command (line). Line and advisory officers worked
independently, in a clear separation between the planning and execution of war operations.
Officers in the general staff were later transferred to command (line) positions and back to
the general staff, which ensured intense experience and experience in cabinet, field and
again cabinet functions.

Another contribution of the military organization is the principle of direction, according to

which every soldier must know perfectly what is expected of him and what he must do.
Mooney highlights that even Napoleon, the most autocratic general in military history, never
gave an order without explaining its objective and verifying that it had been correctly
understood, since he was convinced that blind obedience never leads to the intelligent
execution of any act.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), a Prussian general,
wrote a treatise on war and the principles of war, suggesting how to manage armies in
times of war. Many administration theorists were inspired by this and were later based on
military organization and strategy, adapting its principles to industrial organization and
strategy.

Clausewitz considered discipline as a basic requirement for good organization. For him,
every organization requires careful planning in which decisions must be scientific and not
simply intuitive. Decisions must be based on probability and not just logical necessity. The
manager must accept uncertainty and plan in a way that can minimize it.

Starting in 1776, with the invention of the steam engine by James Watt (1736-1819) and its
subsequent application in production, a new conception of work completely modified the
social and commercial structure of the time, causing profound and rapid changes of
economic, political and social order that, in a period of approximately a century, were
greater than those that occurred in the previous millennium. This period, which is known as
the Industrial Revolution, began in England and spread throughout the civilized world
rapidly.

The Industrial Revolution can be divided into two distinct periods:

From 1780 to 1860: first Industrial Revolution1 or coal and iron revolution.

From 1860 to 1914: second Industrial Revolution or steel and electricity revolution.

Although it began in 1780, the Industrial Revolution did not acquire its full momentum
before the 19th century. It emerged like a snowball with increasing acceleration.

The first Industrial Revolution can be divided into four phases.

First phase: the mechanization of industry and agriculture. At the end of the 18th century,
the appearance of the spinning machine (invented by the Englishman Harreares in 1767),
the hydraulic loom (by Cartwright in 1785) and the cotton stripping machine (by Whitney in
1792) replaced the work of man and his muscular strength, of the animal, and even of the
water wheel. Although they were large and heavy machines, they had incredible superiority
over the manual production processes of the time. The cotton mill processed a thousand
pounds of cotton, while at the same time a slave processed only five.

Second phase: the application of the driving force to the industry. The elastic force of
steam, discovered by Dénis Papin in the 17th century, remained without application until
 1776 when Watt invented the steam engine. With the application of steam to machines,
great transformations began in workshops, which became factories, as well as in
transportation, communications and agriculture.

Third phase: the development of the factory system. The artisan and his small workshop
disappeared to give way to the worker, factories and industries based on the division of
labor. New industries emerged to the detriment of rural activity. The migration of human
masses from agricultural areas towards the vicinity of factories causes the growth of urban
populations.

Fourth phase: a spectacular development of transport and communications. Steam

navigation emerged with Robert Fulton (1807) in the United States, being

perfected by Stephenson. The first railway arose in England (1825) and later others were
laid in the United States (1829). This new means of transportation spread rapidly. Other
means of communication appeared with surprising speed: Morse invented the electric
telegraph (1835), the postage stamp emerged in England (1840), Graham Bell invented the
telephone (1876). The first symptoms of the enormous economic, social, technological and
industrial development and the profound transformations and changes that occurred with
gradually greater speed were already emerging.

With all these aspects, considerable capitalist control over almost all branches of economic
activity is increasingly defined.

Starting in 1860, the Industrial Revolution entered a new phase, profoundly different from
the first Industrial Revolution. It is the so-called second Industrial Revolution caused by
three important events:
 improvement of the dynamo (1873);

 invention of the internal combustion engine (1873), by Daimler.

 development of new steel manufacturing processes (1856);

The main characteristics of the second Industrial Revolution are the following:

l. the replacement of iron by steel as a basic industrial material;

2. the replacement of steam by electricity and petroleum derivatives, as the main sources
of energy;

3. the development of automatic machines and a high degree of specialization of work;

4. the increasing dominance of industry by science;

5. radical transformations in transportation and communications. Railway tracks are

improved and expanded. Starting in 1880, Daimler and Benz built automobiles in Germany.
Dunlop perfected the tire in 1888 and Henry Ford began production of his dblquote
Tdblquote model in 1908 in the United States. In 1906, Santos Dumont made his first
experience with the airplane;

6. the development of new forms of capitalist organization. Solidarity partner companies,

typical forms of commercial organization, whose capital comes from the profits obtained
(industrial capitalism), and which take an active part in the management of business, gave
rise to the so-called financial capitalism, which has four main characteristics:
a) the domination of the industry by banking investments and financial and credit
institutions, as was the case with the founding of the United State Corporation, in 1901 by
J. Q. Morgan and Company;

b) the immense accumulation of capital, coming from monopolies and company mergers;

c) the separation between private ownership and management of companies;

d) the development of holding companies (parent companies);

7. the expansion of industrialization to Central and Eastern Europe and the Far East.

Of the quiet artisanal production, in which all the workers were organized in trade
corporations governed by statutes, where everyone knew each other, in which the
apprentice - to become an artisan or a master - had to produce a perfect work in front of the
juries and of the trustees (authorities of the corporation), man quickly moved to the
production regime of machines, within large factories. There was no gradual adaptation
between the two social situations, but rather a sudden modification of the situation caused
by two aspects, namely:

l. the transfer of the craftsman's skill to the machine, which began to produce more quickly,
in greater quantity and with better quality, making it possible to reduce the cost of
production;

2. the replacement of the strength of the animal or human muscle with the power of the
steam engine (and later the engine), which allowed greater production and greater
economy.

Workshop owners, who were not in a financial position to purchase machines and
mechanize their production, were forced by the force of competition to work for other
workshop owners who owned the necessary machinery. This phenomenon of
mechanization of workshops, rapid and intense, caused a series of mergers of small
workshops that became part of larger ones and that, little by little, grew and transformed
into factories. This growth accelerated thanks to the reduction in production costs that led
to competitive prices and greater coverage of the consumer market of the time. This
increased the demand for production and, contrary to what was expected, machines did not
completely replace man, but rather gave him better conditions for production. Man was only
replaced by the machine in those tasks that could be automated and accelerated by
repetition. With the increase in markets as a result of the popularization of prices, factories
required large human contingents. The mechanization of work led to the division of labor
and the simplification of operations, and caused traditional trades to be replaced by semi-
automated and repetitive tasks, which could be easily carried out by people without any
qualifications and with enormous simplicity in control. . The domestic production unit, that
is, the workshop or family craft, disappeared with the sudden and violent competition. Then
a plurality of workers and machines emerged in the factories. With the concentration of
industries and the merger of small workshops fueled by the phenomenon of competition,
large contingents of workers worked together during daily work days, which lasted 12 or 13
hours, in dangerous and unhealthy environmental conditions, which caused accidents and
illnesses in large numbers. Industrial growth was improvised and based entirely on
empiricism, since the situation was totally new and unknown. At the same time that an
intense migration of labor was unleashed from agricultural fields to industrial centers, an
accelerated phenomenon of urbanization arose, also without any planning or orientation. At
the same time, capitalism is consolidated, a new social class grows: the proletariat.
Transactions are multiplying and the demand for labor in the mines increased substantially.
The owners began to face new management problems, improvising their decisions and
suffering the consequences of management errors or a nascent technology. Obviously,
these errors were, in many cases, a minimum payment to workers, whose salaries were
very low. Adding to the low standard of living, promiscuity in factories and the risk of
serious accidents, the long period of work together allowed for closer interaction between
workers and a growing awareness of the precariousness of their living and working
conditions. and intense exploitation by an economically better-off social class. The first
tensions between the workers and the owners of the industries did not take long to appear.
The states themselves began to intervene by modifying some labor laws. In 1802, the
English government passed a law that sought to protect the health of workers in the textile
industries. Protestant pastors and local judges voluntarily monitored compliance with that
law. As the problems worsened, new laws were issued.

With the nascent technology of production processes and the construction and operation of
machines, as well as the growing legislation that sought to defend the health and physical
integrity of the worker and, consequently, of the community, administration and
management of industrial companies became the permanent concern of their owners.
Practice helped to select ideas and empirical methods. Instead of small groups of
apprentices and artisans led by skilled masters, the problem was now leading battalions of
workers of the new proletarian class; Instead of rudimentary instruments of manual work,
the problem was operating machines whose complexity increased. The products began to
be produced in partial operations in a sequential manner, each of them directed by a group
of workers specialized in specific tasks, who were almost always unaware of the other
operations and were even unaware of the purpose of the piece or the task that they were
carrying out. they executed This new situation contributed to banishing from the worker's
mind the most intense social vehicle, that is, the feeling of being producing and contributing
to the good of society. The capitalist distanced himself from his workers and began to
consider them as an enormous anonymous mass, at the same time that social groups,
more concentrated in companies, generated social and protest problems, along with others
related to performance at work and teamwork, who needed a quick and adequate solution.
The main concern of businessmen lay, logically, in improving the mechanical and
technological aspects of production, with the aim of producing greater quantities of better
products and at the lowest cost. Personnel management and coordination of productive
effort were aspects of little or no importance. In this way, although the Industrial Revolution
caused a profound modification in the business and economic structure of the time, it never
directly influenced the principles of business administration then used. Company leaders
simply tried to meet the demands of a rapidly expanding economy lacking specialization as
best they could or knew how. Some businessmen made their decisions based on the
military or ecclesiastical organizations that were successful in previous centuries.

The capitalist use of machines in the factory system intensifies the social nature of work,
which implies:

a) rigid rhythms;

b) strict rules of behavior;

c) greater mutual interdependence.

“The machine imposes as absolutely necessary the cooperative nature of work, the need
for social regulation. However, the capitalist use of machines leads to authoritarian
direction and administrative regulation over the worker, considering the extraction of
surplus value carried out by members of the administrative staff, executives, directors,
supervisors and foremen. The bosses manage to pass off as simple social regulations what
in reality is their authoritarian code. Authoritarian management is the capitalist objective
that defines the guarantees of cooperation, through the so-called “rationalization of work”
and control of the worker's behavior. To obtain cooperation in the industry, managerial
functions are transformed from norms of control into norms of repression.

For the TGA, the main consequence of this process is the birth of the modern organization
and company with the Industrial Revolution, thanks to a multitude of factors, among which
the following can be highlighted:

a) the breakdown of the corporate structures of the Middle Ages;

b) technological advance, thanks to the applications of scientific progress to production, as

well as the discovery of new forms of energy and the possibility of an enormous expansion
of markets;

c) the replacement of artisanal production by industry.

http://html.rincondelvago.com/influencias-en-la-administracion.html

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INFLUENCE OF THE MILITARY ORGANIZATION

The historical contribution of the Org will be briefly described. Military in the
administration as well as its development as a science, since the system of knowledge
of war activity has allowed the evolution of the methods of preparation and conduct
both in the armed struggle, giving way to political-social, technical conditions of each
epoch.

Military or militia | Organization |

This term refers to the institutions that are part of the Armed Forces; whose mission,
but not exclusive, is to defend the sovereignty of the country through use and weapons
if necessary. | They are social systems designed to achieve goals and objectives
through human resources or the management of human and other talent and the object
of study of the sciences of administration. |

Background:
Wars are as old as man himself, but the administration takes them into account from
the slave era (3 thousand BC). C), with Homer's Iliad, the battles of the Roman Empire,
medieval battles and of course the invaluable testimony of Sun Tzu on the art of war.
But it would not be until the end of the Second World War (qualitative), that the science
of administration would take it as an example.

Influence:
The linear organization or hierarchy scale, which shows us the unity (authority and
responsibility) of superior and subordinate command, (ancient and medieval armies)

Centralization of command and decentralization of execution, in modern times, we

found ourselves in the need to delegate responsibilities for the largest battles (even
continental ones), originating principles of organization in planning and control),
(Napoleon)

The command advisories (staff or staff) which monitored the functioning of the line of
command, the staff officers could occupy command positions (line) and then return to
the staff to ensure experiences and experiences, (Prussian army)

Knowing the objectives of the actions, that is, everything is general, no matter how
autocratic, when an order must also make the objective known.

The discipline: careful planning as a basic requirement for a good organization, making
scientific (probability) and non-intuitive (logical) decisions, accepting uncertainty and
planning from it to minimize it.

Sources:
Introduction to administration, chapter 2, author Chiavenato idalberto,
http://www.gorinkai.com/textos/suntzu.htm
http://www.ecured.cu/index.php/Historia_de_la_Administraci%C3%B3n_Militar

Influence of the Military Organization

The military organization has influenced the development of administration theories.

To begin with, the principle of unity of command is that each subordinate can only have

one superior (this is fundamental for the management function). The hierarchical scale

is a characteristic element of the military organization, used in other organizations.

General Napoleon (1769-1821l) is known as the most autocratic general in military

history, since he did not give an order without explaining its objective and making sure

that it had been understood perfectly, he was convinced that the Blind obedience never

leads to the intelligent execution of any act. The general, when leading his army, had

the responsibility of monitoring the entire battlefield.

ADMINITRATION OF ADOLF HITLER:

The Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler was an elite formation of the Waffen SS (a combat

corps or protection squad) initially formed as an armed personal guard for Adolf Hitler.

Hitler dismissed Eihen (in charge of recruiting) from his duties in 1929 and in his place

a poultry farmer named Heinrich Himmler, (a childhood friend), took command,

giving him the title of Reichsführer. Himmler approached the Prussian
aristocracy to the SS and had notable success in increasing from the original
286 members to 300,000 in two years, since he attracted middle and upper
social strata, which gave the SS an elitist status.
When selecting individuals for the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, a series of
requirements were demanded that not everyone could satisfy. These
requirements, set by Himmler, were:
• Have your certificate of Arianism duly initialed by Himmler's signature.
• The minimum height was 1.78 m; if it was two cm less, they could access the
Totenkopfverbände, an SS subunit.
• Physical and intellectual abilities above average.
• Physical appearance according to the canons of Walter Darré.
OATH:
I promise you Adolf Hitler as Führer and Reich Chancellor, loyalty and courage.
I promise you, and those you have appointed to command me, obedience until
death.
God help me.
Another contribution of the military organization is the principle of direction,
through which every soldier must know perfectly what is expected of him and
everything he must do.
At the beginning of the 19th century, Carl Von Clausewitz (1780-1831), a
Prussian general, wrote a treatise suggesting how to administer armies in times
of war. He was the great inspiration of many administration theorists who relied
on military organization and strategies to adopt them to the industrial field.
Clausewitz considered discipline as the basis of good organization.
For him, every organization requires careful planning, in which decisions must
be scientific and not intuitive again. Decisions should be based on probability
and not just logical necessity. The manager must accept uncertainty and plan in
a way that can minimize that uncertainty.
These organizations are the most pressured when it comes to good
administration, that is why they have contributed too many principles, one of the
most important has been to organize an entire authority in a single chief of staff,
the companies took it as a way of hierarchizing for the concentration of
personnel.
http://www.buenastareas.com/ensayos/Influencia-De-La-Guerra-En-La/
3474322.html

Military Contributions in the Administration

The Administration before becoming independent has had many influences and one of

them is from the military organization.

The origin of military logistics goes back to the history of conflicts and by extension to

the history of man, who in his purpose to survive and increase his power saw that it

was necessary to fight to obtain, conquer or take over land, power or riches.

A good administrator must take into account the principles of efficiency, effectiveness,

emphasis on people, limited rationality, decision and influence, self-organization,

strengthening teamwork, development of leadership based on principles, strategic

planning and imagination that were the main contributions that the military organization

taught.

This military logistics passed to the administration, showing them how the threats that

may exist within a company should be eliminated and how these can affect the

organizations' objectives. I also contribute to how to conquer new markets or at least

maintain them and preserve their current participation and economic survival.

In the same way, I contribute to the characteristics of bureaucracy through respect for

hierarchies and the rigor required by the development of operational tasks and thus

form teams for research/action.

These ideals that the military organization defends make a company successful.

Among his contributions we have:

Command:

It is exercised through the issuance of the order, it is a power that must be deserved,

not only from the point of view of the highest authorities who grant it, but especially

from the point of view of the subordinates who receive it.

Hierarchy:
 It is the scale of command levels according to the degree of authority, this is a

characteristic element of the military organization, through this administrative hierarchy

a specific person can develop throughout their work.

Authority:

It consists of the right to command and the power to be obeyed. It has its origins in the

principle of unity of command that the military used, according to which each

subordinate must have a superior who is fundamental for the function of direction.

Delegation:

It is the action and effect of delegation, it is when we give a person or a group the

necessary faculties and powers to represent us.

This delegation arose in military operations that as they increased, the need to

delegate authority to the lower levels of the organization also grew.

Discipline:

It is the ability to act orderly and tenaciously in order to obtain a good, discipline

regulates the correct relationship between workers and their superiors, based on the

relationship of interdependence, compliance with orders and obligations, based on the

recognition and the respect of people.

Leadership:

It is the set of capabilities that a person has to influence the minds of people, a leader

has the power to make a team work enthusiastically to achieve goals and objectives.

Strategy:

It is the set of planned actions with the objective of achieving goals, the objective of

strategy is to align the resources and potentials of a company to achieve its goals and

objectives of expansion and growth.

Conclusion

Since the beginning of humanity, military organizations have been forced to manage

large amounts of logistical resources and personnel, therefore, they have had to

develop management principles long before it was studied as a science.

The military contributions were concepts, assumptions, techniques and applications

that were adapted to the business sector since in administration its importance is seen
in the fact that it imparts effectiveness to human efforts, helping to obtain better

personnel, equipment and materials.

Military organizations have developed principles and practices to manage large groups

that, combined with their ideals, make all their contributions of utmost importance to

improve administration and thus successfully achieve the objectives of a company.

http://www.buenastareas.com/ensayos/Aportes-De-La-Organizacion-Militar-a/
3577953.html

Influence of the military organization

The military organization has also influenced the development of theories of

administration. The linear organization, for example, has its origins in the military

organization of the armies of Antiquity and medieval times. The principle of unity of

command, according to which each subordinate can only have one superior -

fundamental for the leadership function - is the central core of all military organizations

of those times. The hierarchical scale, that is, the scale of command levels according to

the corresponding degree of authority and responsibility, is a characteristic element of

the military organization, used in other organizations. As time went by, the gradual

expansion of the scale of command also brought a corresponding expansion of the

degree of delegated authority: as the volume of military operations increased, so did

the need to delegate authority to lower levels within the organization. the military

organization. Still in the time of Napoleon (1769-1821), the general, when leading his

army, had the responsibility of monitoring the entire battlefield. However, in the face of

larger-scale battles, including continental ones, the command of war operations

demanded, not new principles of organization, but the extension of the principles then

used, which led to centralized planning and control parallel to decentralized operations.

Thus the centralization of command and the decentralization of execution were passed.

The concept of hierarchy within the military organization is as old as war itself, since

there has always been the need for a general staff for the army. However, the normal

state, as a headquarters, only appeared in 1665 with the Brandenburg District, the

precursor of the Prussian army. The evolution of the advisory principle and the
formation of a general state had its origin in the 18th century in Prussia, with Emperor

Frederick II, the Great, (1712-1786) who, eager to increase the efficiency of his army,

made some innovations. in the structure of the military organization. With the help of

General Scharnhorst, a staff was created to advise the military command (line). Line

and advisory officers worked independently, in a clear separation between the planning

and execution of war operations. Officers trained in the general staff were later

transferred to command (line) positions and back to the general staff, which ensured

intense experience and experience in cabinet, field and again cabinet functions.

Another contribution of the military organization is the principle of direction, according

to which every soldier must know perfectly what is expected of him and what he must

do. Mooney highlights that even Napoleon, the most autocratic general in military

history, never gave an order without explaining its objective and verifying that it had

been correctly understood, since he was convinced that blind obedience never leads to

the intelligent execution of any act.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Carl Von Clausewits (1780-1831), a Prussian

general, wrote a treatise on war and the principles of war, suggesting how to administer

armies in times of war. Many administration theorists were inspired by this and were

later based on military organization and strategy, adapting its principles to industrial

organization and strategy.

Clausewits considered discipline as a basic requirement for good organization. For

him, every organization requires careful planning in which decisions must be scientific

and not simply intuitive. Decisions must be based on probability and not just logical

necessity. The manager must accept uncertainty and plan in a way that can minimize

it.[

2.3 MILITARY INFLUENCE ON ADMINISTRATION In this the most representative

character was Nicolás de Machiavelli with his work The Prince, where he considers

that a good ruler must exercise authority without fear. Based on these parameters:

to. The hierarchical structure and the division by short sections of command
 b. Linear authority

c. Rigid discipline of compliance with orders without discussion

http://www.buenastareas.com/ensayos/Influencia-Militar-En-La-Administracion/
2705000.html

INFLUENCE OF THE MILITARY ORGANIZATION ON THE ADMINISTRATION

The military organization has also influenced the development of theories of
administration. The linear organization, for example, has its origins in the military
organization of the armies of Antiquity and medieval times. The principle of unity of
command, according to which each subordinate can only have one superior -
fundamental for the leadership function - is the central core of all military organizations
of those times. The hierarchical scale, that is, the scale of command levels according to
the corresponding degree of authority and responsibility, is a characteristic element of
the military organization, used in other organizations. As time went by, the gradual
expansion of the scale of command also brought a corresponding expansion of the
degree of delegated authority: as the volume of military operations increased, so did
the need to delegate authority to lower levels within the organization. the military
organization. Still in the time of Napoleon (1769-1821l), the general, when leading his
army, had the responsibility of guarding the entire battlefield. However. in the face of
larger-scale battles. Even on a continental scale, the command of war operations
required, not new principles of organization, but the extension of the principles then
used, which led to centralized planning and control parallel to decentralized operations.
This led to the centralization of command and the decentralization of execution.
The concept of hierarchy within the military organization is as old as war itself, since
there was always the need for a general staff for the army.--However, the formal state,
as headquarters, only appeared in 1665 with the District of Brandenburg, precursor of
the Prussian army. The evolution of the advisory principle and the formation of a
general state had its origin in the 18th century in Prussia, with Emperor Frederick II, the
Great, (1712-1786) who, eager to increase the efficiency of his army, made some
innovations in the structure of the military organization. With the help of General
Scharnhorst, a staff was created to advise the military command (line).

http://www.buenastareas.com/ensayos/Influencia-Filosofica-En-La-Administracion/
5351682.html

Contributions of the military organization  The military organization

influenced the theories of administration. 2500 years ago, SUN TZU, Chinese
general and philosopher, wrote a book on the art of war; in talking about
previous plans, mobilization in war, the use of the sword, maneuvers and
tactics, the army on the march and the terrain, as well as the strengths and
weaknesses of the enemy and the organization of the army. Various
contemporary versions have emerged from SUN TZU's teachings.  The linear
organization has its origins in the military organization of the armies of
medieval times.  The principle of unity of command, where each subordinate
can only have one superior, represents the core of the military organization.
The hierarchical scale is typical of the military organization; There are
various levels of command with specific authority and responsibility. As time
went by, as the volume of military operations increased, it became necessary
to delegate authority to different levels of the military organization. Under
Napoleon (1769-1821), each general took care of the entire battlefield. The
command of operations in continental wars made command centralized and
execution decentralized.

http://www.slideshare.net/guest8397bfc/evolucion-historica-de-la-administracion