“The security environment has always been complex!”: the views of Finnish military officers on complexity

References

• Ashby, W. R., 2011. Variety, Constraint, And The Law Of Requisite Variety. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 13 (1–2), 200–207. (originally published in 1968).
   Google Scholar
• Australian Army, 2012. Adaptive Campaigning – Army’s Future Land Operating Concept. Re-release. Available from: https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/sites/default/files/acfloc_2012_main.pdf [Accessed 15 Jan 2020
   Google Scholar
• Bar-Yam, Y., 2004. Multiscale Variety in Complex Systems. Complexity, 9 (4), 37–45. doi:10.1002/cplx.20014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bar-Yam, Y., 2015. Global Civilization and Counterterrorism. CTC Sentinel, 8 (7), 17–22.
   Google Scholar
• Blouin, S., 2013. Is Your World Complex? An Overview of Complexity Science and Its Potential for Military Applications. Canadian Military Journal, 13 (2), 26–36.
   Google Scholar
• Boisot, M., and B. McKelvey, 2011. Complexity and Organization—Environment Relations: Revisiting Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety. In Allen, P., S. McGuire, and B. McKelvey, edited by. The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management. London: Sage, 279–298.
   Google Scholar
• Bousquet, A., 2008. Chaoplexic Warfare or the Future of Military Organization. International Affairs, 84 (5), 915–929. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00746.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bousquet, A., 2012. Complexity Theory and the War on Terror: Understanding the Self-organising Dynamics of Leaderless Jihad. Journal of International Relations and Development, 15 (3), 345–369. doi:10.1057/jird.2011.24
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, S., 2003. Deliberative Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6 (1), 307–326. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Churchman, C. W., 1967. Wicked Problems. Management Science, 14 (4), 141–142.
   Google Scholar
• Cilliers, P., 2011. Complexity, Poststructuralism and Organization. In Allen, P., S. McGuire, and B. McKelvey, edited by. The SAGE Handbook of Complexity and Management. London: Sage, 142–154.
   Google Scholar
• Dent, E. B., and C. G. Holt, 2001. CAS in War, Bureaucratic Machine in Peace: The US Air Force Example. Emergence, 3 (3), 90–107. doi:10.1207/S15327000EM0303_6
   Google Scholar
• Diceman, J., 2014. Idea Rating Sheets: Facilitator’s Handbook. Available from: http://idearatingsheets.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/idea_rating_sheets_handbook_2-5f.pdf [Accessed 9 Dec 2019]
   Google Scholar
• The Finnish Government, 2017. The Security Strategy for Society. Government Resolution/2.11.2017. Helsinki: Security Committee.
   Google Scholar
• GAR, 2019. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva: UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
   Google Scholar
• Glouberman, S., and B. Zimmerman, 2002. Complicated and Complex Systems: What Would Successful Reform of Medicare Look Like? Discussion Paper no. 8. Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Available from: https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/complicatedandcomplexsystems-zimmermanreport-medicare-reform.pdf [Accessed 29 Jan 2020]
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, M. K., 2018. Comprehensive Cyber Security Approach: Bolstering Cybersecurity Capacity through Industrial Policy. BASC working paper series, working paper 2018-07. Berkeley APEC Study Center. University of California, Berkeley. Available from: https://basc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/BWP18-07.pdf [Accessed 29 Jan 2020]
   Google Scholar
• Grönlund, K., A. Bächtiger, and M. Setälä, eds., 2014. Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process. Colchester: ECPR Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hanén, T., 2017. Yllätysten edessä: kompleksisuusteoreettinen tulkinta yllättävien ja dynaamisten tilanteiden johtamisesta [Faced with the Unexpected – Leadership in Unexpected and Dynamic Situations: An Interpretation Based on Complexity Theory]. Helsinki: The National Defence University.
   Google Scholar
• Juntunen, T., 2017. Helsinki Syndrome: The Parachronistic Renaissance of Finlandization in International Politics. New Perspectives, 25 (1), 55–83. doi:10.1177/2336825X1702500103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopsch, T., and A. Fox, 2016. Embracing Complexity: Adjusting Processes to Meet the Challenges of the Contemporary Operating Environment. Army Press Online Journal, Aug 22. Available from: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2016-Online-Exclusive-Articles/Embracing-Complexity-Adjusting-Processes/ [Accessed 2 Feb 2020].
   Google Scholar
• Kosonen, J., A. Puustinen, and T. Tallberg, 2019. Saying No to Military Service—obligation, Killing and Inequality as Experienced Problems in Conscription Based Military in Finland. Journal of Military Studies, 8, 46–57. doi:10.2478/jms-2019-0005
   Google Scholar
• Lineweaver, C. H., P. Davies, and M. Ruse, 2010. What Is Complexity? Is It Increasing? In Lineweaver, C. H., P. Davies, and M. Ruse, edited by. Complexity and the Arrow of Time. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 3–16.
   Google Scholar
• Lundqvist, S., and J. J. Widen, 2016. Swedish–Finnish Naval Cooperation in the Baltic Sea: Motives, Prospects and Challenges. Defence Studies, 16 (4), 346–373. doi:10.1080/14702436.2016.1220805
   Google Scholar
• Maher, A., 2014. The Application of Complex Adaptive Systems Concepts to Contemporary Special Operations. Australian Defence Force Journal, 193, 66–76.
   Google Scholar
• March, J. G., 1991. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2 (1), 71–87. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marion, R., and M. Uhl-Bien, 2003. Complexity Theory and Al Qaeda: Examining Complex Leadership. Emergence, 5 (1), 54–76. doi:10.1207/S15327000EM0501_06
   Google Scholar
• Mattis, J., 2017. Remarks by Secretary Mattis at the Association of the U.S. Army Exposition on Building Readiness in Washington, D.C. Available from: https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/1337675/remarks-by-secretary-mattis-at-the-association-of-the-us-army-exposition-on-bui/ [Accessed 15 Jan 2020]
   Google Scholar
• McChrystal, S., T. Collins, D. Silverman, and C. Fussell, 2015. Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World. New York: Penguin Publishing Group.
   Google Scholar
• Mercier, D., 2018. NATO’s Adaptation in an Age of Complexity. PRISM, 7 (4), 2–11.
   Google Scholar
• Mitleton-Kelly, E., 2003. Ten Principles of Complexity & Enabling Infrastructures. In Mitleton-Kelly, E., edited by. Complex Systems & Evolutionary Perspectives of Organisations: The Application of Complexity Theory to Organisations. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd., 23–50.
   Google Scholar
• Møller, J. E., 2019. Trilateral Defence Cooperation in the North: An Assessment of Interoperability between Norway, Sweden and Finland. Defence Studies, 19 (3), 235–256. doi:10.1080/14702436.2019.1634473
   Google Scholar
• Nabatchi, T., 2010. Addressing the Citizenship and Democratic Deficits: The Potential of Deliberative Democracy for Public Administration. The American Review of Public Administration, 40 (4), 376–399. doi:10.1177/0275074009356467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, J., and Y. Bar-Yam, 2018. Special Operations Forces: A Global Immune System? In Morales, A., C. Gershenson, D. Braha, A. Minai, and Y. Bar-Yam, edited by. Unifying Themes in Complex Systems IX. ICCS 2018. Cham: Springer, 486–498.
   Google Scholar
• Paparone, C. R., R. A. Anderson, and R. R. McDaniel Jr, 2008. Where Military Professionalism Meets Complexity Science. Armed Forces & Society, 34 (3), 433–449. doi:10.1177/0095327X07310337
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puustinen, A., 2017. Voiko Verkostoa Johtaa? [Can Networks Be Managed?]. Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies, 149. Kuopio: University of Eastern Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Puustinen, A., H. Raisio, and V. Valtonen, 2020. Security Cafés: A Deliberative Democratic Method to Engage Citizens in Meaningful Two-way Conversations with Security Authorities and to Gather Data. In Lehtimäki, H., P. Uusikylä, and A. Smedlund, edited by. Society as an Interaction Space: A Systemic Approach. Heidelberg: Springer, 311–330.
   Google Scholar
• Raisio, H., and N. Lundström, 2015. Real Leaders Embracing the Paradigm of Complexity. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 17 (3), 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, K. A., G. Mathieson, and P. Cilliers, 2000. The Theory and Practice of Complexity Science: Epistemological Considerations for Military Operational Analysis. SysteMexico, 1 (1), 25–68.
   Google Scholar
• Rousseau, C., 2003. Complexity and the Limits of Modern Battlespace Visualization. Canadian Military Journal, 4 (2), 35–44.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, A., 2009. The Foundation for an Adaptive Approach: Insights from the Science of Complex Systems. Australian Army Journal, 6 (3), 69–90.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, M., and G. Smith, 2014. Defining Mini-publics. In Grönlund, K., A. Bächtiger, and M. Setälä, edited by. Deliberative Mini-Publics. Colchester: ECPR Press, 9–26.
   Google Scholar
• Say, M., and B. Pronk, 2012. Individual Decision-Making in Complex Environments. Australian Army Journal, 9 (3), 119–140.
   Google Scholar
• Storr, J., 2003. A Command Philosophy for the Information Age: The Continuing Relevance of Mission Command. Defence Studies, 3 (3), 119–129. doi:10.1080/14702430308405081
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, M. A., 2019. Spaghetti: Systems Thinking and the US Army. Defence Studies, 19 (2), 149–169. doi:10.1080/14702436.2019.1596741
   Google Scholar
• Tourish, D., 2018. Is Complexity Leadership Theory Complex Enough? A Critical Appraisal, Some Modifications and Suggestions for Further Research. Organization Studies, 40 (2), 219–238. doi:10.1177/0170840618789207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Army. 2015. The Army Vision: Strategic Advantage in a Complex World. Available from: https://usacac.army.mil/publication/the_army_vision [Accessed 15 Jan 2020]
   Google Scholar
• Uhl-Bien, M., and M. Arena, 2018. Leadership for Organizational Adaptability: A Theoretical Synthesis and Integrative Framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29 (1), 89–104. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wither, J. K., 2020. Back to the Future? Nordic Total Defence Concepts. Defence Studies, 20 (1), 61–81. doi:10.1080/14702436.2020.1718498
   Google Scholar
• World Economic Forum, 2019. The Global Risks Report 2019. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
   Google Scholar
• World Economic Forum, 2020. The Global Risks Report 2020. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
   Google Scholar
• Yankelovich, D., 1991. Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L., Q. Wang, and L. Hanks, 2016. A Comparison of Plurality Voting Sheets and Idea Rating Sheets in Judgement-making: A Participatory Architectural Design in the Nottingham Natural History Museum, Wollaton Hall. Museum Management and Curatorship, 31 (2), 103–140. doi:10.1080/09647775.2015.1118355
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zweibelson, B., 2016a. Linear and Non-Linear Thinking: Beyond Reverse-Engineering. Canadian Military Journal, 16 (2), 27–35.
   Google Scholar
• Zweibelson, B., 2016b. Rose-tinted Lenses: How American Functionalist Strategy Inhibits Our Appreciation of Complex Conflicts. Defence Studies, 16 (1), 68–88. doi:10.1080/14702436.2016.1147924
   Google Scholar
• Zweibelson, B., L. Hedström, M. Lindström, and U. Pettersson, 2017. The Emergent Art of Military Design Swedish Armed Forces and the Contemporary Security Environment. Krigsvetenskapsakademiens Handlingar Och Tidskrift, 3, 83–97.
   Google Scholar