Antecedents of Organizational Sophistication in Violent Non-State - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Antecedents of Organizational Sophistication in Violent Non-State Actors

Gina S. Ligon Associate Professor The Center for Collaboration Science University of Nebraska at Omaha Michael K. Logan Doctoral Candidate School of Criminology and Criminal Justice University of Nebraska at Omaha

This research was supported by the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office and the Department of Homeland Science Directorate’s Office of University Programs through Award Number 2012-ST-061 CS0001, Center for the Study of Terrorism and Behavior (CSTAB 1.12) made to START to investigate THEME: 1 the role of social, behavioral, cultural, and economic factors on radicalization and violent extremism (Principal Investigator for this project, Dr. Gina Ligon, University

• f Nebraska Omaha). The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of CTTSO, DHS, or START.

1

• Who We Are
• Indicators of Organizational Sophistication

in VNSAs

• Leadership for the Extremism and

Dangerous for Innovative Results (LEADIR) Project

• Application to VNSAs in CENTCOM AOR
• Conclusions and Benefits for Planners

Agenda for Today’s Talk

2

3

The Center for Collaboration Science

• Interdisciplinary Research

Center Examining All Forms

• f Collaboration
• Radicalization and Violent

Extremism (RAVE) Division

• DoD University Affiliated

Research Center (UARC) and DHS Center of Excellence Performer

4

What is Organizational Sophistication?

Specialization Centralization Formalization Organizational Sophistication

5

Why Organizational Sophistication Matters

As Organizational Sophistication increases so too does the VNSAs’:

• Aptitude for complex operations and tactics
• Organizational capital
• Capacity for innovation

Organizational Dimension Advantages Indicators

Centralization Formalization Specialization

• Clearly defined goals
• Resource management
• Expertise
• Cross-functional collaboration
• Increased accountability
• Efficient decision-making
• Institutional memory
• Hierarchical agenda-setting
• Top-management-team
• Operational autonomy
• Titles that codify functions
• Uniforms signaling tenure
• Application process
• Diverse organizational activities
• Distinctions between sub-units

6

280 Violent Non-State Actors Open Source Data Collection Coding Scheme for Historically Verified Organizational Information

7

Measuring Organizational Sophistication

Organizational Sophistication

Organizational Dimension Indicators

• Presence of Leadership (0-1)

Formalization Specialization Centralization Mean (SD)

• Top-Down Command-and-Control (1-5)
• Organizational Training (0-1)
• Combat Training (0-1)
• Territorial Control (0-1)
• Deep-Level Diversity (1-5)
• Departmentalization (1-5)
• Services (0-1)
• .84 (.39)
• 3.43 (1.12)
• .32 (.47)
• .37 (.49)
• .65 (.48)
• .40 (.49)
• .51 (.50)
• 2.41 (1.25)
• 2.94 (1.18)
• .25 (.44)
• Uniforms(0-1)
• Ideological Training (0-1)

8

US Central Command Area

• f Responsibility

*Adopted from centcom.mil/area-of-responsibility

9

Organizational Sophistication

Low Levels High Levels Lebanese Hezbollah Badr Brigades AQAP Baloch Republican Guards Sindu Liberation Army Jaish-e-Mohammad Kata’ib Hezbollah

10

Organizational Sophistication and Lethality

48.18 658.15 2907.85

0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00 3000.00 Low Moderate High

Average Lethality (2008 - 2017) Level of Organizational Sophistication

11

Organizational Sophistication and Successful Attacks on Hard Targets

6.45 69.13 77.92

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 Low Moderate High Number of Successful Attacks on Hard Targets (2008 - 2017) Level of Organizational Sophistication

12

Organizational Sophistication and Lethality on Hard Targets (General)

30.64 427.64 995.38

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00 900.00 1000.00 Low Moderate High Average Number of Hard Targets Killed (2008 - 2017) Level of Organizational Sophistication

13

Organizational Sophistication and Lethality on Hard Targets (by Target Type)

12.55 74.72 340.54 11.55 278.87 483.31 6.55 74.05 171.54

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 Low Moderate High Average Number of Hard Targets Killed (2008 -2017) Level of Organizational Sophistication Military Targets Police Targets Government Targets

14

Three Main Findings

 Organizational Sophistication is Linked to Increasingly Complex Violence  Organizational Sophistication is an Observable Construct in VNSAs  Practical Way of Examining Capabilities in VNSAs

Example Indicator Checklist of Organizational Sophistication Yes/No Indicator Questions Does the VNSA have a clearly defined leader? Does the VNSA control territory? Does the VNSA engage in combat training? Do members of the VNSA wear uniforms?

15

Benefits to Planners

 Anticipate Target Selection Based on VNSA’s Organizational Sophistication  Inform Potential Capabilities of Emerging Threats  Provide Additional Tool for Prioritization and Resource Allocation in Fiscally Constrained Environment

16

Thank You

Gina S. Ligon gligon@unomaha.edu Michael K. Logan mlogan@unomaha.edu

17

Recent Works Supporting SMA Effort

Logan, M.K., Zimmerman, L., Parker, B., & Ligon, G.S. (2019). Terrorism in the Philippines and its influence on Great Powers. Zimmerman, L., Logan, M.K., & Ligon, G.S. (2019). Violent non-state actors and the Kashmir conflict. Logan, M.K., Ligon, G.S., & Zimmerman, L (2019). Influential violent extremist organizational partners of Iran. Ligon, G.S. & Logan, M.K. (2019). Organizational and leadership consolidation and fragmentation in the AFPAK region.

*** The current presentation is based on this effort.

Logan, M.K. & Ligon, G.S. (2019). Using organizational sophistication to predict influence from violent non-state actors.***

18

Organizational Sophistication & Additional Organizational Characteristics

Organizational Sophistication* Organizational Age Organizational Size State Sponsorship Illicit Funding Streams .35, p < .01 .53, p < .01 .30, p < .05 .36, p < .01

* Results based on Pearson’s r Correlation analysis