Are Best Practices Sustainable?

Just because something has been a certain way for some time doesn’t make it the best way. At every turn, the environment, political scene, or latest innovation impacts the variables surrounding the relativity of “best.” This conundrum doubles down when personalities, budgets, and adversarial changes are factored in. The military touts innovation as a key requirement to succeeding when things are constantly changing. However, there are multiple challenges related to the required agility mandated of our service members.

One of the greatest obstacles to sustained innovation is institutional memory. Practices that once produced decisive victories or operational efficiency become codified into doctrine, policy, and culture. Over time, these methods are defended not because they are still effective, but because they are familiar. “That’s how we’ve always done it” becomes a shield against scrutiny, even as the operational environment evolves faster than the systems designed to respond to it. In a profession where adaptability is celebrated in theory, it is often constrained in practice.

Layered bureaucracy further complicates the push for innovation. While checks, balances, and accountability are essential in an organization entrusted with immense authority and resources, excessive red tape can smother momentum. Approval chains stretch endlessly, pilot programs die in committee, and creative problem-solvers learn quickly that initiative often comes with professional risk rather than reward. The result is a paradox: service members are told to think critically and act decisively, yet are frequently penalized for deviating from prescribed processes.

Compounding this challenge is the pace of modern conflict and technology. Adversaries are not bound by the same acquisition timelines, personnel policies, or cultural norms. They iterate rapidly, exploit commercial technology, and adapt asymmetrically. Meanwhile, the military often attempts to fight tomorrow’s wars using systems, strategies, and mindsets designed for yesterday’s threats. Innovation becomes episodic—dependent on crises or visionary leaders—rather than a sustained, embedded capability.

At the individual level, this stagnation takes a toll. Service members are resilient, disciplined, and mission-focused, but they are not immune to frustration. When motivated leaders and troops see obvious inefficiencies yet lack the authority to fix them, morale erodes. Burnout doesn’t come from hard work alone; it comes from fighting systems that seem resistant to improvement. Over time, the organization risks losing its most forward-thinking talent—not to weakness, but to exhaustion.

The military’s greatest strength has always been its people: their tenacity, loyalty, and willingness to endure adversity in service of something larger than themselves. That same strength, however, becomes a double-edged sword when perseverance is used to tolerate dysfunction rather than correct it. Innovation should not require heroic effort or personal sacrifice beyond the mission itself. If the military wants to remain dominant in an era defined by rapid change, it must learn to protect and empower its innovators as fiercely as it protects tradition. Otherwise, the cost will not be measured only in missed opportunities, but in the slow burnout of the very force it depends on to adapt and win.