Six articles focus on the organizational structure in military organizations. Three articles explore military organizations as hierarchies and how formal structures, rules, and routines create and sustain inequality regimes by giving preferential treatment to military employees and superiors, excluding competencies needed in the rising complexity of the military administration (Eriksen 2008; Heiskanen et al. 2018; Macdonald 2004). Another study explores the effects of organizational restructuring aimed at increasing cost effectiveness, operational flexibility, and the agility of deployable units in four countries. Restructuring challenges the traditional military value system based on selfless service, loyalty, and commitment, leading to discontent within the ranks, professional disunity, and dissatisfaction with the institution being unsupportive of effective internal cooperation (Heinecken 2009; Heffner and Gade 2003).

Another study explores how formal structures support creative ideas from informal communities of practice to develop solutions to new and changing operational demands that support internal exchange relationships. The effectiveness seems supported by a goal that aligns with traditional values (Schulte et al., 2020).

This search resulted in 16 hits translated into two themes: masculine esprit de corps and social order.

The third search yielded 16 articles focusing on how the military profession changes in response to geopolitics, operational environments, and public demands.

Three articles explore the shift in military personnel and officer education from a practical professional focus to a more academic approach. Despite opposition and criticism, a new form of professionalism is slowly emerging (Ben-Shalom, 2014; Libel, 2019). However, military education, training, and socialization continue to reflect traditional military norms rather than adapting to the new demands of peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and international missions (Boncourt, 2017; Franke & Heinecken, 2001).

Increased civilian control over the military, challenging the military profession and rank system, are studied in four articles (Fragoso et al., 2019; Hedlund, 2013; Holmberg & Alvinius, 2019; Ledberg et al., 2022). Political demands for social equality and the integration of civil laws also influence military organizations (Hedlund, 2013). Managerialism in the public sector has impacted the military, increasing civilian control through audits and evaluations, which limit military professional judgment and challenge the traditional self-governance of military organizations and senior command (Ledberg et al., 2022).

Five studies focus on integrating gender, reservists, and private contractors (Berndtsson, 2019; Danielsson & Carlstedt, 2011; Hirschfeld & Thomas, 2011; Persson, 2010; Smith & McAllister, 1991). Findings reveal visible cultural hierarchies between male and female, military and civilian, and combat versus support roles. Male officers occupy the highest ranks, while civilian women in support roles face the poorest working conditions and limited career prospects. Though highly educated and often holding prestigious civilian positions, reservists are not entirely accepted as ‘real officers’, and their skills are undervalued and underutilized (Danielsson & Carlstedt, 2011). Despite policies that change traditional military values, they are persistent and highly influential in internal cooperation (Persson, 2010; Smith & McAllister, 1991).

Military leadership and the profession are deeply intertwined. One study highlights the glorification of military leaders, portraying leadership as more about social control than genuine social influence. This reinforces the military hierarchy, associates leadership with the military value system, and creates an idealized view of the profession that blurs the line between control and influence (Hutchison, 2013). Another study on professional socialization reveals how young officers endure excessive workloads in pursuit of career advancement and face exclusion if they refuse to perform unpaid work (Nilsson & Österberg, 2022). Furthermore, the military practice of frequent job rotation negatively impacts job satisfaction and performance, especially among junior officers (Jans & Frazer-Jans, 2004).

In conclusion, while the military profession remains conservative and hierarchical, glorifying commanding figures, it faces increasing external pressure for reform. These external demands challenge the traditional profession, affecting and challenging internal cooperation by creating tensions between maintaining established values and adapting to modern public administration practices. The result is a profession struggling to balance its traditional identity with evolving public accountability and efficiency expectations.

A search for articles on leadership in military organizations resulted in 30 relevant studies, many focusing on leadership behavior, potential, and competency development (Bekesiene et al., 2021; Bekesiene & Hoskova-Mayerova, 2018; Oh & Lewis, 2008; Young & Dulewicz, 2005, 2007, 2009).

Military leaders are often elevated to heroic status, with top leaders distanced from their followers by the chain of command and aides who limit access (Sang & Golan, 2022). Transformational leaders who communicate vision and mission are seen as role models, especially at higher ranks, while transactional leadership, which rewards performance, is less frequently reported (Ivey & Kline, 2010; Stadelmann, 2010). Mission-focused leadership is more common than controlling, performance-based leadership (Hattke et al., 2018). However, resource-demanding, non-hierarchical leadership, such as fostering innovation, requires special support from top management (Šimanauskienė et al., 2021).

Destructive leadership is observed at all levels, reducing job retention, commitment, and job satisfaction (Dobbs & Do, 2019; Larsson et al., 2012; Reed & Bullis, 2009). Toxic leadership is linked to organizational cynicism, where employees lose faith in improvement and evaluate leaders negatively (Dobbs & Do, 2019). Interestingly, higher-ranking personnel report fewer instances of destructive leadership (Larsson et al., 2012).

Military leadership is value-driven, grounded in shared mental models and influence (Brænder & Holsting, 2022; Larsson et al., 2005). Indirect leadership studies emphasize trust-building and role clarity (Alarcon et al., 2010; Larsson, 2006). Trust, fairness, and integrity are fundamental values that enhance commitment (Deluga, 1995; DeLiello & Houghton, 2008).

At the strategic level, the military fosters exclusive loyalty, with respect for symbols, rank, and traditions viewed as essential for success (Alvinius et al., 2017). Leadership struggles arise when employee norms and competencies do not align with project demands, as leaders expect uniform commitment regardless of individual differences (Holth & Boe, 2019).

Six articles address the inclusion of minorities, highlighting challenges for part-time reservists and gender minorities. Reservists report of marginalization and exclusion (Connelly, 2021; Scoppio & Luyt, 2016). Gender minorities face difficulties reaching leadership roles due to masculine norms and lack of networks (Alvinius et al., 2018; Dunn, 2007, 2015; McNamara et al., 2021). Successful minority integration requires better alignment between leadership culture and societal demands (Kotzian, 2009; Dunn, 2015).

In sum, while military leadership is often viewed as heroic and transformative, it can also be experienced as destructive and toxic. The traditional, hierarchical leadership model faces significant challenges in adapting to modern public administration demands encompassing more inclusive and flexible leadership approaches. These challenges influence internal cooperation as leaders are perceived as role models guiding appropriate action and behavior; simultaneously, they are subject to traditional masculine values and appropriate behavior for advancement and maintaining the culture.

This search resulted in nine studies of public management in the military.

Societal, political, and operational pressures increasingly shape public management in military organizations. Analyses of current and future military needs emphasize the importance of integrating military branches to address resource shortages and improve efficiency (Moreno & Gonçalves, 2021). One study finds that suspending conscription has led military organizations to adopt more market-oriented public communication, primarily focused on recruitment. This communication emphasizes international missions and combat, referred to as “the unique offering,” which has caused internal resistance, as personnel feel these campaigns misrepresent their work. This market-oriented approach challenges traditional professional norms within military organizations (Deverell et al., 2015).

New governance ideas and management techniques further complicate military identities (Catasus & Gronlund, 2005; Costa et al., 2020; McConville, 2006; Skærbæk & Thorbjørnsen, 2007; Valério et al., 2020). Two studies examine how the shift from a focus on war and defense to peacekeeping and unconventional warfare makes it difficult to define the military's core mission (Almqvist et al., 2011; Catasus & Gronlund, 2005). Introducing New Public Management-inspired documentation and accounting systems disrupt traditional military structures, transforming officers' roles into a highly challenging and complex hybrid of warrior and manager (Skærbæk & Thorbjørnsen, 2007). Additionally, a study on environmental management shows that the military shifted from resisting stakeholder participation to adopting proactive attitudes that provide necessary knowledge on environmental issues (Wu et al., 2014).

While public management changes are taking place, they often create challenges related to military identity and culture, leading to confusion and conflicting values, complicating internal cooperation.

Table 1 presents the modern military characteristics described through the reviewed empirical research conducted within the logic of internal cooperation.

The following sections discuss the characteristics of the modern military organization in relation to the logic of internal cooperation. The discussion focuses explicitly on policy design and implementation as a crucial part of internal cooperation. The discussion section is opened with a short description of the theoretical framework based on public policy literature. This framework subsequently relates military characteristics to specific elements of the logic of internal cooperation.

Policy design and implementation are critical phases in the policy process, shaping the translation of ideas into actionable outcomes (Hill & Hupe, 2009). Policy design theory claims that insufficient knowledge leads to the misspecification of problems and that a lack of unified political and administrative support creates contradictory policies that are difficult to implement for even the most committed and competent civil servants (Linder & Peters, 1984). Top-down implementation theory explains implementation failure due to unclear and poorly communicated policy goals, overly long implementation chains, and complexity of joint action (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1980). Bottom-up implementation theory focuses on the competing demands placed on street-level bureaucrats caught in a crossfire between local agendas, professional norms, and limited resources (Lipsky, 2010).

This section briefly outlines policy design and implementation theory as a backdrop for discussing the characteristics of the military organization related to policymaking – constituting a critical task within the logic of cooperation. The policy design perspective is applied for a nuanced understanding of the role of a systemic approach focusing on inclusion, collaboration, and adaptation in public policy (Ansell et al., 2017; Peters, 2020). The traditional account of the obstacles to policy implementation departs from Weaver (2010), who briefly summarizes the classic arguments from the implementation literature. Following this outline described below, the discussion of the influence of military characteristics on policy design and implementation is conducted.

According to Peters (2021) and Linder and Peters (1984), adopting a policy design perspective enhances the prospects for effective and legitimate policy outcomes by engaging systemic and collaborative approaches to policymaking, avoiding the challenges of insufficient knowledge integration and linear problem-solving approaches. This approach acknowledges complex and turbulent problems and contexts embracing participation and adaptation to take policy actors beyond traditional closed, routinized, and entrenched modes of policymaking presented by most policy implementation literature (Linder & Peters, 1987). Participation of relevant actors provides essential insights into problem framing, practical solutions, and the changing conditions on the ground. For participation to contribute to better policy outcomes, the organization must facilitate the involvement of actors with relevant knowledge and experience, with the policy problem being critical in the design phase, where the course of action is decided (Peters, 2018; Torfing, 2016). Collaboration, spurring mutual and ongoing learning, joint ownership over policy solutions, and adaptation, essential in turbulent contexts, challenge the division of different actors presented by traditional policy implementation literature (Linder & Peters, 1991).

Policy implementation literature has traditionally been divided into top-down (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1980) and bottom-up (Lipsky, 2010) approaches. Acknowledging the critical insights emerging from these approaches but avoiding the sharp division between them, synthetic approaches have been developed (Matland, 1995; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1980; Winter, 1989). Matland (1995) suggests analyzing the degrees of conflict and ambiguity in goals and means related to a specific policy process as the starting point to find the appropriate approach for further implementation analysis.

Weaver, on the other hand, suggests a pragmatic framework by which policy performance can be improved by conducting a systematic analysis focusing on predictable challenges and proactive responses in the implementation processes (Weaver, 2010). The framework draws on top-down and bottom-up implementation theory and broadly understands policy implementation as controlled by hierarchy, laws, and rules but problematized by the different conditions and complexity of public organizations, environments, and power distribution. The framework can be condensed into five critical points of concern for policymakers: a) Goals, priorities, and tasks should be clearly defined to avoid mission drift and emerging conflicts, and analysis should therefore identify and eliminate ambiguities; b) If a new policy departs from the established policy path, learning curves become steeper and the risk of failure increases, analysis should therefore produce strong incentives and control mechanisms to secure the production of planned outcomes; c) Alignment and coordination between different organizational entities involved is important to prevent opposition and fragmentation. Therefore, Implementation analysis should find ways to simplify the governance structure to minimize coordination needs; d) Resource constraints challenge producing desired policy outcomes. Analysis should, therefore, mobilize and allocate adequate resources; e) The analysis should create clear guidelines to align program operators with the program goals through instruction, communication, and performance management to support efficiency.

The two approaches guide the discussion below, which examines the most common policy design and implementation challenges with modern military characteristics.

The military structure seems unsupportive of the policy design approach discussed by Linder and Peters (1991). Hierarchy and centralized control, being dominant in the military (Friesl et al. 2011), hinder collaboration up and down the chain of command. A sharp division of labor into branches/functions and extensive formalism reduce horizontal knowledge sharing, coordination, and collaboration opportunities, constraining the solutions' flexibility and adaptation (Moreno & Gonçalves, 2021). Even though the military organization is changing in the realm of societal and political pressure (Franke & Heinecken, 2001; Holmberg & Alvinius, 2019; Lundberg & Rova, 2022; Moreno & Gonçalves, 2021), strong and consistent hierarchical and functional structures challenge collaboration and adaptation to changing conditions. Furthermore, power struggles and turf battles challenge the horizontal coordination between military branches (Moreno & Gonçalves, 2021).

According to implementation scholars, long implementation chains stress the need for control, monitoring, and performance measurement down the chain of command to secure implementation (Pressman & Wildawsky, 1980; Weaver, 2010). The military hierarchy, centralized control, and authority visible in rank insignias (Bergström et al. 2014; Heinecken 2009) support effective policy implementation, as it supports clarity in direction and priorities and helps minimize ambiguity when policy aligns with professional values. However, cultural norms and professional discretion challenge implementation down the chain of command when solutions challenge military norms and values (Friesl et al., 2011; Hale, 2012). When complex challenges arise and orders are not understood concerning implementing solutions, it seems there is little dialogue to facilitate sensemaking, ensuring transformation (Holth & Boe, 2019).

In sum, military structures seem supportive of policy implementation when in line with the military missions and values. Conversely, the military is highly institutionalized in hierarchical and siloed structures, limiting the possibilities for engaging in policy design as collaborative, participatory, and adaptive processes.

Strong loyalty to military values, dedication, and determination combined with an intense sense of belonging to the close-knit professional community, critical dependence on appraisal from seniors for career advancement, fear of becoming an outsider, and a strict adherence to codes of discipline (Gushpantz, 2017; Hale, 2012; O’Donnell & Shields, 2002) all seem to curtail the opportunities for collaboration between relevant and affected actors. Constructively managing differences of judgment and opinion through dialogue is almost impossible in a strong pecking order reflecting leaders' command authority and social status. The exclusion of particular voices and the lack of constructive dialogue hurt the opportunities for mutual learning, joint ownership, and flexible and responsive problem-solving.

In the military hierarchy, the attitudes of subordinates are shaped by individuals in high-power positions (Gushpantz, 2017; Hutchison, 2013), which minimizes the possibility of integrating professional differences in reflective dialogues. Hierarchical cultures tend to be self-reinforcing (Magee and Galinsky 2008), giving collaborative approaches to difficult conditions in the military culture. Front-line workers support their superiors’ commands in cases where the results contradict the organizational goals and the well-being of the subordinates (Gushpantz, 2017). The risk of being perceived as unworthy prevents leaders from sharing experiences and insights regarding stress, as doing so is perceived to be contradictory to the masculine culture (Cawkill, 2004). Introducing perspectives inconsistent with the professional rules and norms seems unlikely, as it simultaneously leads to risks of exclusion, minimizes opportunities for advancement, and negatively influences reputation (Cawkill 2004; Friesl et al. 2011), thus sustaining insulated, routinized, and unconscious modes of working. The chances for engaging in creative design processes are slim, as they are at odds with the military culture. Overall, the military culture, which encompasses hierarchical thinking, rank superiority, and a strong need for communal belonging, stands out as opposed to the policy design fundamentals.

The military culture is characterized by determination and loyalty to the commander (Gushpantz, 2017; Hutchison, 2013), and it supports implementing policies from superiors based on compliance with orders. However, policy goals can be challenging to achieve if they conflict with the organizational mission or culture (Weaver, 2010). Several studies find that discrepancies between policy goals and the military mission and culture lead to superficial changes (Almqvist et al., 2011; Catasus & Gronlund, 2005; Costa et al., 2020; Hur, 2018; Skærbæk & Thorbjørnsen, 2007). A separate military agency was permeated by cultural norms that profoundly hampered achieving the policy objectives (Friesl et al., 2011). Even though the organizational entity was separated from the original organization to avoid influence, as Weaver (2010) recommended, the cultural understandings of hierarchy and seniority overruled task and conceptual arguments. The cultural understanding hampered the chances for the break-away agency to achieve its policy goals (Friesl et al., 2011). Another study shows how adopting new structures and processes related to a gender policy resulted in only superficial changes that failed to question institutional and cultural values (Johnstone and Momani 2019). Strong cultural values support policy implementation in the military, securing the alignment of frontline worker behavior with the policy objectives if they are initially aligned with the mission and values (March & Olsen, 1983; Suntrup & Perrow, 1974).

The military profession is highly specialized through ongoing and comprehensive training and education, and professional values guide and sanction behavior and decision-making (Gushpantz, 2017; Moreno & Gonçalves, 2021). Rank is tied to competencies and skills in the military profession: the higher the rank, the more competent and skilled members are perceived to be (Mattila et al., 2017). This perception means that the opinions of high-ranking officers and seniors tend to overrule the task-oriented arguments and voices of lower-level employees regarding decision-making, knowledge sharing, and innovation (Friesl et al. 2011; Šimanauskienė et al. 2021, Jaffe 1984). Bringing different knowledge bases together in policy design processes for collaboration is challenging in the military administration, as superiors are powerful agenda setters; and even in processes explicitly focusing on the involvement of specific expertise, superiors overrule lower-level voices and non-military perspectives, which hinders the constructive use of multi-actor collaboration (Mattila et al., 2017).

The professional understanding of the leader reinforces the military hierarchy, heroizing military leaders, and installing a romantic perspective of the military profession (Hutchison, 2013). The military chain of command is introduced at the very beginning of military socialization and continually maintained. Written educational materials representing the military organization and institution are pervasive and indoctrinate specific values and worldviews (Hutchison, 2013). This controlling form of socialization to the acceptance of hierarchy minimizes the opportunities for participation and collaboration, as constructive deliberation calls for openness to and responsiveness of multiple voices (Linder & Peters, 1991). Not only is the integration of lower-level military voices difficult, but integrating understandings, competencies, and ideas from “outsiders” (reservists, civilians, women, and support personnel) is even more difficult as the military professions exclude actors who are “proper” members of the profession (Danielsson and Carlstadt 2011; Persson 2010; Smith and McAllister 1991). The resistance to insights and perspectives provided by highly educated and competent civilians and reservists, lacking and much needed in military organizations (Connelly, 2021), underscores the difficulties in collaboration and participation. Despite external and task-related pressure for the military profession to integrate other personnel groups, the professional mechanisms inherently exclude or minimize other voices (Friesl et al., 2011; Gushpantz, 2017; Mattila et al., 2017). In summary, the military profession is highly exclusive and oriented toward the privileged insights of military leaders and seniors; therefore, it opposes the collaborative and integrative approach to policy design.

Policies responding to political, societal, and operative pressures for change are challenging to implement in the military organization (Boncourt 2017; Friesl et al. 2011; Hedlund 2013; Libel 2019; Persson 2010) because they collide with the military professional identities, values, and practices, as well as the overall organizational mission (Almqvist et al., 2011; Deverell et al., 2015). When policy objectives and goals differ from the organizational mission, strong professional groups are likely to interpret and translate the policy in line with their norms and values. Preventing goal displacement requires external top-down control down the chain of command to scrutinize results and to sanction deviations (Weaver, 2010). The military members have a psychological contract with the organization (Hur, 2018; O’Donnell & Shields, 2002) where compliance with the rulings of superiors is exchanged for promotion and appraisal, which may support the implementation of the policy as the military leaders interpret it. Military leaders expect loyalty from their subordinates (Hutchison 2013), and this may reduce the superiors’ motivation to set up costly control. The pecking order, the backbone of the military profession, supports top-down implementation aligned with professional rules. Still, there is no guarantee that the military interprets the policy as intended.

The growing external pressures lead to professional and institutional discord, lack of trust in management, and weaker professional commitment, which reduces the compatibility between the needs of the organization and those of the individual (Heffner & Gade, 2003). Waning organizational trust and commitment can lead lower-level staff to implement policies that favor local goals at the expense of the overall policy goals and may also diminish the effect of professional control mechanisms (Franke and Heinecken 2001; Heinecken 2009). At the same time, external pressures enhance the demand for resource efficiency (Holmberg & Alvinius, 2019). Resource constraints, lack of organizational capacity in several domains, and increased efficiency demands prevail in the military organization (Catasus & Gronlund, 2005; Moreno & Gonçalves, 2021; Valério et al., 2020), which may strain policy implementation (Weaver, 2010).

Military leaders are strongly socialized into a solid hierarchy (Hutchison, 2013; Reed & Bullis, 2009). Leaders are responsible for maintaining organizational image and meeting expectations of superhuman and superior behavior (Alvinius et al., 2017; Dunn, 2015). Strategic leaders recognize that complying with values and rules is crucial for their success and future promotion, but they lack feedback and appreciation from their superiors (Alvinius et al., 2017). These perceptions and experiences of military leadership reinforce top-down compliance and prevent initiatives and engagement in collaborative processes. Collaboration, experimenting, and adaptive efforts contradict the heroic and masculine leader directing the staff based on precise commands and clear orders. This hampers the chances for military leaders to develop competencies and mental models that support ongoing learning, adaptation, and collaboration by engaging in the multifaceted practice of leadership responsive to changing tasks, goals, and contexts (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2009).

Furthermore, toxic leadership, such as harassment and patronizing behavior (Dobbs & Do, 2019; Larsson et al., 2012; Reed & Bullis, 2009), influences the possibilities for reflective dialogues and mutual learning. Subordinates exposed to toxic leadership do not experience organizational protection, undermining their trust in leadership (Dobbs & Do, 2019). Trust is essential for personnel to engage in constructive and open dialogue, and the lack thereof reduces the chances of collaboration and constructive exchange relationships (Bentzen, 2023). Transformational leadership in the military focuses on followers’ values and motivation but remains embedded in the influence of hierarchical culture, toxic leadership, and the lack of organizational trust. Engaging in learning for innovative solutions based on interaction with relevant actors goes beyond transformational leadership and calls for adaptive and pragmatic leadership (Torfing, 2016). Military leadership, primarily focusing on rules, hierarchy, organizational appearance, and the fulfillment of superhuman expectations, seems to oppose this.

Military leaders are appreciated and valued by the military community when stating clear goals, telling subordinates what is expected of them, and finding ways to achieve them (Young and Dulewicz 2005, 2009). Relating their competencies to policy design and implementation reveals difficulties since resource capacity constraints and local conditions undermine the goals and plans of military leaders. Moreover, leaders, accustomed to commanding and telling subordinates what is expected, tend to be less responsive to subordinates’ knowledge and conditions on the ground, overlooking important contextual insights emerging during the implementation.

Military leadership, primarily based on hierarchical top-down approaches, is unsupportive of complex problem-solving and adaptation to changing contexts and conditions, which require a more multifaceted approach. However, military leadership may support the implementation of policies aligning with the military culture, as loyalty to superiors focuses attention and determination.

The military is governed by a classical public management model, hindering more collaborative and adaptive approaches to policymaking. Resource competition and resource scarcity among the military branches and support agencies create a focus on local goals, tasks, and means (Costa et al., 2020; Moreno & Gonçalves, 2021) rather than the overall policy goals hampering crosscutting collaboration. Top-down governance with a strong focus on compliance and budget discipline reduces the room for adaptability and responsiveness, as information sharing, openness, and collaborative problem-solving are frowned upon (Moreno & Gonçalves, 2021). The particularistic mentality in the military branches exacerbated by rivalry prevents a holistic approach to policymaking (Moreno & Gonçalves, 2021). The integration of the external participation of relevant societal actors in environmental management is hampered by the tendency to rely on the internal discretion of military agencies and top leaders (Wu et al., 2014). However, external political pressure for efficiency and demands for a broader range of military capabilities occasionally lead to management reform and more collaborative governance, but the organizational inertia is considerable (Costa et al., 2020; Moreno & Gonçalves, 2021; Wu et al., 2014).

Overall, the key characteristics of the military organization find little leverage for engaging in policy design based on participation, collaboration, and learning-based adaptation. The military hierarchy, its masculine culture, and the strong professional identities exclude nonmilitary personnel and opinions that do not comply with military rules and values, thus leaving little room for problem exploration and collaborative innovation. The strong importance of leadership, seniority, and advancements combined with ongoing socialization and a sense of communal belonging minimize the opportunity to explore diverse understandings, insights, and knowledge bases. The lack of holistic objectives further reduces the possibilities for engaging in creative policy design.

The military is generally governed by bureaucracy (Moreno & Gonçalves, 2021; Wu et al., 2014) and professional rules (Deverell et al., 2015). New and deviant policy objectives are challenging to implement and require external pressure and hard-won learning. Ambitious political, societal, and operational demands conflict with entrenched structures, cultures, and professional norms, resulting in delayed, superficial policy implementation - or even a lack thereof (Almqvist et al., 2011; Moreno & Gonçalves, 2021; Skærbæk & Thorbjørnsen, 2007). The implementation of policies aimed at profound changes is an up-hill struggle in most public organizations (Egeberg, 2013). Still, it seems even more difficult in military organizations, where centralized control, autonomy of special branches, professional norms, top-down leadership, and organizational insulation are all particularly strong and contribute to maintaining the status quo. Implementing accounting, recruitment, and appraisal systems bears evidence of the protective shell provided by the military profession, bureaucratic rules, and the masculine esprit de corps (Costa et al., 2020). Implementing an accounting system challenged the military professional values and warrior identity and spurred conflicts. On this account, top management and subordinates were reluctant and unsupportive of the project, leading to long, troublesome implementation processes (Skærbæk & Thorbjørnsen, 2007). The implementation of a new recruitment policy created problems of internal cooperation, as external communication collided with military identities (Deverell et al., 2015).

In sum, the key administrative characteristics of military organizations that the systematic literature review revealed overall challenge participation, collaboration, and adaptation required to develop implementable policy designs. Moreover, at the surface level, centralized control in military organizations, where top leaders expect to be obeyed, may seem to support policy implementation; deeper down, however, implementation seems frustrated by long implementation chains and strong professional norms and identities.