Eliot Ackerman and Jim Stavridis recently published an article in The Wall Street Journal. The topic was the effect of drone swarms in a modern battle. It is a decent article about how warfare is evolving. Certainly a topic that John Boyd might have a lot to say about, were he still with us. In it they refer to Boyd and attempt to explain the OODA "loop." Their understanding and explanation of Boyd's thinking is off. Way off.
Like many in the defense establishment, academia and media, they mischaracterize Boyd's work. As is often the case, they do it in a way that completely misses the core point. The end result is yet another edition of "Bad Boyd" meant to be seen as "Good Boyd." They are not the first, and they will not be the last.
Explaining Boyd The Wrong Way
They say Boyd made the OODA "loop" in the 1950s.1 This is wrong. Boyd, an Air Force pilot and strategist, came up with OODA much later. While having speed as you observe, orient, decide, and act can help in conflicts, it is not enough. Why? By oversimplifying it, you miss the core: orientation.
They write that Boyd’s theory “contends that the side in a conflict that can move through its OODA loop fastest will possess a decisive battlefield advantage.”2 Boyd actually stressed that how you orient yourself with reality and unfolding circumstances matters more than speed. Orientation shapes your observations, and guides your decisions and actions.
The Heart of Boyd's Idea: Orientation
The big mistake in their article is downplaying orientation. It's not a simple step in a linear process. Rather it is the core tenet of Boyd's thinking on the OODA "loop." It's about making sense of what you see, then using it to decide and act. Boyd said if your orientation is off, moving fast won't help. You'll make wrong moves.
The Bigger Problem
Misunderstanding Boyd’s is by no means unique to Ackerman and Stavridis. It shows a wider problem in military strategy and beyond. This "Bad Boyd" approach—reducing Boyd to a fault - limits our ability to act in our VUCA world for what it actually is.
Boyd's foundational thoughts are in his paper "Destruction and Creation." It is a safe bet to wager that the authors have not read this work. If they have, they are not even close to its core thesis. Not engaging with these ideas means missing out on understanding how to under the OODA "loop."
Beyond the Surface
To gain a better understanding of Boyd, you need to comprehend and appreciate the depth and breadth of his work. There is no excuse given the embarassment of digital riches available on Boyd. Start with reading "Destruction and Creation." Accompany it with Chuck Spinney's "Evolutionary Epistemology." Those two alone would help you identify "Bad Boyd" with greater ease, speed and clarity.
Understanding Boyd effectively is key to facing dangers and opportunities in the modern world. This is vital in both business and warfare. Leaders and teams must make effective decisions and actions. They must learn and adapt as circumstances unfold. If our competitors do this and we do not, our defeat is imminent. This has a better chance to be avoided with an improved understanding of John Boyd and his theories.
Ackerman, Eliot and Stavridis, Jim. “Drone Swarms Are About to Change the Balance of Military Power.” The Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2024. https://www.wsj.com/tech/drone-swarms-are-about-to-change-the-balance-of-military-power-e091aa6f
Ibid.
Very important post that helps provide clarity on Boyd and his thinking.
The pattern of behavior exhibited here is how people take a new idea or a new technology and make it work to support older ways of thinking and operating. Andrew McLuhan addressed this the other day - https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrew-mcluhan-06165b96_as-james-joyce-said-of-these-man-made-activity-7178004940114538496-6gAX?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop. I've seen how this makes innovation more a novelty rather than a step forward.