Overcoming the intelligence-sharing paradox: Improving information sharing through change in organizational culture

ABSTRACT

Existing organizational cultures among agencies in the intelligence community serve as barriers to information sharing. These cultures are characterized by secrecy and limited disclosure of information. Their practices of limited information distribution and existing extensive compartmentalization of information serve as impediments to information exchange between agencies in the intelligence community. To remedy this, changes in the organizational cultures of agencies in the intelligence community are required. Without a change in organizational culture, the culture of information sharing envisioned by the reforms that have occurred in the intelligence community post-9/11 will not be realized.

Notes

1. Mark Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2006).

2. Alan Breakspear, “A New Definition of Intelligence,” Intelligence and National Security, vol. 28, no. 5 (2013): 678–693.

3. Ibid.

4. James Burch, The Domestic Intelligence Gap: Progress Since 9/11? Homeland Security Affairs, Supplement: Proceedings of the 2008 Center for Homeland Defense and Security Annual Conference (April 2008), 27.

5. Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, Today's Rising Terrorist Threat and the Danger to the United States: Reflections on the Tenth Anniversary of The 9/11 Commission Report (Washington, DC: Bipartisan Policy Center, National Security Program, Homeland Security Project, 2014).

6. Bruce Hoffman, Edwin Meese III, and Timothy J. Roemer, The FBI: Protecting the Homeland in the 21st Century. 9/11 Review Commission (unclassified report, Washington, DC, 2015), 84.

7. Kean and Hamilton, Today's Rising Terrorist Threat.

8. Josh Levs and Monte Plott, “Boy, 8, One of 3 Killed in Bombings at Boston Marathon; Scores Wounded,” CNN, April 18, 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/15/us/boston-marathon-explosions/index.html; CNN, “Boston Marathon Terror Attack Fast Facts,” July 11, 2013, available at http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/us/boston-marathon-terror-attack-fast-facts/index.html

9. Kean and Hamilton, Today's Rising Terrorist Threat.

10. Ibid., 28.

11. Hoffman, Meese III, and Roemer, The FBI.

12. Maras, Marie-Helen, Counterterrorism (Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett, 2012).

13. E.g., John Rollins, “Fusion Centers: Issues and Options for Congress,” Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress, RL34070, 2008, available at http://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34070.pdf; Agnes Gereben Schaefer, “The History of Domestic Intelligence in the United States: Lessons for Assessing the Creation of a New Counterterrorism Intelligence Agency,” in Brian A. Jackson, ed. The Challenge of Domestic Intelligence in a Free Society: A Multidisciplinary Look at the Creation of a U.S. Domestic Counterterrorism Intelligence Agency (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2009), 13–47; James R. Clapper, Jr., “Effective Intelligence Must Remain a Top Priority: From the Director,” The Police Chief, vol. 79 (2012): 12; Robert A. Smith, “The Pursuit of Law Enforcement Intelligence Training and Education,” The Police Chief, vol. 81 (2014): 30–35.

14. Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, “Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack,” 79th Congress, Second Session, Document No. 244 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1946), xi.

15. David Kahn, “The Intelligence Failure of Pearl Harbor,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 70, no. 5 (1991), available at http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/47442/david-kahn/the-intelligence-failure-of-pearl-harbor

16. Frederick P. Hitz, “The Future of American Espionage,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, vol. 13, no. 1 (2000): 1–20.

17. Paul Maddrell, “Failing Intelligence: U.S. Intelligence in the Age of Transnational Threats,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, vol. 22, no. 2 (2009): 213.

18. Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004).

19. Alex Tyakoff, “Counter Terrorism and Systems Dynamics: Modeling Organizational Learning in Postmodern Terrorist Groups,” in Klint Alexander, ed., Terrorism and Global Insecurity: A Multidisciplinary Perspective (Chicago, IL: Linton Atlantic, 2009), pp. 179–192.

20. William J. Lahneman, “Knowledge-Sharing in the Intelligence Community after 9/11,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, vol. 17, no. 4 (2004): 614–633.

21. Margaret J. Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2006).

22. Alexander Ardichvili, Vaughn Page, and Tim Wentling, “Motivation and Barriers to Participation in Virtual Knowledge Sharing Communities of Practice,” Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 7, no. 1 (2005): 64–77; Ulrike Cress, Joachim Kimmerle, and Friedrich W. Hesse, “Information Exchange with Shared Database as a Social Dilemma: The Effect of Meta-Knowledge, Bonus Systems, and Costs,” Communication Research, vol. 33, no. 5 (2006): 370–390.

23. Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (London: William Hodge and Co., 1947).

24. Ralph H. Kilmann, Mary J. Saxton, and Roy Serpa, “Issues in Understanding and Changing Culture,” California Management Review, vol. 28, no. 2 (1986): 87–94; Edgar H. Schein, “Defining Organizational Culture,” in Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott, eds., Classics of Organization Theory, 3rd ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1992), 490–502; Judith R. Gordon, Organizational Behavior: A Diagnostic Approach, 7th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002).

25. David H. Rosenbloom, Public Administration, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998).

26. C. Thomas Thorne, Jr., and David S. Patterson, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1945–1950, Emergence of the Intelligence Establishment (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1996).

27. Central Intelligence Agency, “CIA Vision, Mission, Ethos and Challenges,” 2013, para. 2, available at https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/cia-vision-mission-values

28. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Directorate of Intelligence: Mission, available at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/intelligence/ mission para. 1.

29. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, “Mission, Vision and Goals,” para. 1–2, available at http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/mission

30. Gregory F. Treverton, The Next Steps in Reshaping Intelligence (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2005), available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2005/RAND_OP152.pdf; Burch, “The Domestic Intelligence Gap.”

31. Thomas Patrick Carroll, “The Case Against Intelligence Openness,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, vol. 14, no. 4 (2001): 559–574.

32. Kean and Hamilton, The 9/11 Commission Report, 417.

33. Burch, “The Domestic Intelligence Gap.”

34. James Kitfield, “Anti-Terror Alliance,” Government Executive, February 1, 2001, para. 13, available at http://www.govexec.com/magazine/2001/02/anti-terror-alliance/8314/

35. Marie-Helen Maras, Transnational Security (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014); Hella Engerera, “Security as a Public, Private, or Club Good: Some Fundamental Considerations. Defence and Peace Economics, vol. 22, no. 2 (2011): 135–145; Elke Krahmann, “Security: Collective Good or Commodity?” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 14, no. 3 (2008): 379–404.

36. Maras, Transnational Security; Krahmann, “Security: Collective Good or Commodity?”

37. Section 1.3, Executive Order 12958 of April 17, 1995.

38. Richard A. Best, Jr., “Sharing Law Enforcement and Intelligence Information: The Congressional Role,” (CRS) Report for Congress, RL33873, 2007, available at http://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33873.pdf

39. Kurt Lewin, Field Theory and Social Science (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951); Lewin, “Group Decision and Social Change,” in Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley, eds., Readings in Social Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958).

40. Ibid.; Edgar H. Schein, “Kurt Lewin's Change Theory in the Field and in the Classroom: Notes toward a Model of Managed Learning,” Systems Practice, vol. 9, no. 1 (1996): 27–47.

41. Lewin, Field Theory and Social Science; Lewin, “Group Decision and Social Change.”

42. Steve M. Jex, Organizational Psychology: A Scientist Practitioner Approach (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2002).

43. John P. Kotter, Leading Change (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996).

44. Ibid.

45. David A. Nadler, “Concepts for the Management of Organizational Change,” in Michael L. Tushman, Charles O'Reilly, and David A. Nadler, eds., Management of Organizations (New York: Harper and Row, 1989), 490–504); Gordon, Organizational Behavior.

46. Elissa D. Giffords and Richard P. Dina, “Changing Organizational Cultures,” Administration in Social Work, vol. 27, no. 1 (2003): 69–81.

47. Joan Woodward, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice (London: Oxford University Press, 1954).

48. Michael Fullan, The Challenge of Change (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009); Bert Spector, Implementing Organizational Change: Theory into Practice, international ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011); Stephen P. Robbins and Timothy A. Judge,. Organizational Behavior, 16th e (Upper Saddle River, N: Pearson/Prentice Hall); Jason Colquitt, Jeffery LePine, and Michael Wesson, Organizational Behavior: Improving Performance and Commitment in the Workplace, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin).

49. Gordon, Organizational Behavior; Robert B. Denhardt, Janet V. Denhardt, and Maria P. Aristigueta, Managing Human Behavior in Public and Nonprofit Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012).

50. Denhardt et al., Managing Human Behavior.

51. Gordon, Organizational Behavior, 465.

52. Ibid.

53. Denhardt et al., Managing Human Behavior.

54. Barbara Senior and Jocelyne Fleming, Organizational Change, 3rd ed. (Harrow, Essex, UK: Financial Times, Prentice Hall, 2006).

55. Kim S. Cameron, “A Process for Changing Organizational Culture,” in Thomas G. Cummings, ed., Handbook of Organizational Development (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008), 429–445.

56. Thomas G. Cummings and Christopher Worley, Organization Development and Change, 5th ed. (Saint Paul, MN: West, 1993).

57. Gordon, Organizational Behavior, 102.

58. Abraham H. Maslow, “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychological Review, vol. 50, no. 4 (1943): 370–396.

59. Ibid.

60. Wendell L. French and Cecil H. Bell, Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), cited in Gordon, Organizational Behavior, 460.

61. Gordon, Organizational Behavior, 461.

62. Ibid.

63. Denhardt et al., Managing Human Behavior.

64. Hamilton Bean, “Organizational Culture and US Intelligence Affairs,” Intelligence and National Security, vol. 24, no. 4 (2009): 479–498.

65. Kean and Hamilton, Today's Rising Terrorist Threat, 24.

66. Lyman W. Porter and Edward E. Lawler, Managerial Attitudes and Performance (Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey, 1968); Victor H. Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York: John Wiley, 1964).

67. Mark R. Lepper, “Extrinsic Reward and Intrinsic Motivation: Implications for the Classroom,” in Joel M. Levine and Margaret C. Wang, eds., Teacher and Student Perceptions: Implications for Learning (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983), 281–317.

68. Bean, “Organizational Culture, 479–498.

69. Dennis M. Daley, Performance Appraisal in the Public Sector: Techniques and Applications (Westport, CT: Quorum, 1992).

70. James L. Perry, Beth Ann Petrakis, and Theodore K. Miller, “Federal Merit Pay, Round II: An Analysis of the Performance Management and Recognition System,” Public Administration Review, vol. 49, no. 1 (1989): 29–37, cited in Taehee Kim and Marc Holzer, “Public Employees and Performance Appraisal: A Study of Antecedents to Employees' Perception of the Process,” Review of Public Personnel Administration, vol. 36, no. 1 (2016): 32.

71. Director of National Intelligence, “500 Day Plan Integration and Collaboration,” United States Intelligence Community, 2007, 4, available at http://fas.org/irp/dni/500-day-plan.pdf

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Marie-Helen Maras

Dr. Marie-Helen Maras ([email protected]) is an associate professor at the Department of Security, Fire, and Emergency Management at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She is also part of the faculty of the MS program in Digital Forensics and Cybersecurity and PhD program in Criminal Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Dr. Maras has a DPhil in Law and an MPhil in criminology and criminal justice from the University of Oxford. In addition, she holds a graduate degree in industrial and organizational psychology from the University of New Haven and undergraduate degrees in computer and information science and psychology from UMUC. She is the author of Cybercriminology (Oxford University Press, 2016);Computer Forensics: Cybercriminals, Laws, and Evidence (now in its second edition; Jones and Bartlett, 2014); Counterterrorism (Jones and Bartlett, 2012); CRC Press Terrorism Reader (CRC Press, 2013); and Transnational Security (CRC Press, 2014), among other publications. Furthermore, Dr. Maras is the creator and co-editor for a monograph and edited volume series, Palgrave Studies in Cybercrime and Cybersecurity, at Palgrave-Macmillan. Prior to her academic post, she served in the U.S. Navy for approximately seven years, gaining significant experience in security and law enforcement from her posts as a Navy law enforcement specialist and command investigator. During the early stages of her military career, she worked as an electronics and calibration technician.